• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 3
  • Tagged with
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: A Study of Court of Appeal Decisions in Light of Section 718.2 (e) of the Canadian Criminal Code

Dugas, Andrée 14 February 2013 (has links)
Section 718.2 (e)’s directive to canvass all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders was to be given real force. This study’s goal was therefore to identify what considerations may be impeding or encouraging the application of section 718.2 (e)’s directive through a constructivist discourse analysis of 33 court of appeal cases. The study has mapped trends and influences which weigh strongly on sentencing judges in the decision-making process and considerations that are affecting the application of this provision. Prohibitive and permissive dimensions of the Gladue case were identified related to the application of section 718.2 (e), creating competing ideals in the application of the provision. Modern Penal Rationality (MPR) underpinned many of the judges’ justifications. However, unforeseen considerations were also noted. Ultimately, MPR, dominates the sentencing calculus and diminishes section 718.2 (e)’s application and alternative/restorative potential.
2

Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: A Study of Court of Appeal Decisions in Light of Section 718.2 (e) of the Canadian Criminal Code

Dugas, Andrée 14 February 2013 (has links)
Section 718.2 (e)’s directive to canvass all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders was to be given real force. This study’s goal was therefore to identify what considerations may be impeding or encouraging the application of section 718.2 (e)’s directive through a constructivist discourse analysis of 33 court of appeal cases. The study has mapped trends and influences which weigh strongly on sentencing judges in the decision-making process and considerations that are affecting the application of this provision. Prohibitive and permissive dimensions of the Gladue case were identified related to the application of section 718.2 (e), creating competing ideals in the application of the provision. Modern Penal Rationality (MPR) underpinned many of the judges’ justifications. However, unforeseen considerations were also noted. Ultimately, MPR, dominates the sentencing calculus and diminishes section 718.2 (e)’s application and alternative/restorative potential.
3

Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: A Study of Court of Appeal Decisions in Light of Section 718.2 (e) of the Canadian Criminal Code

Dugas, Andrée January 2013 (has links)
Section 718.2 (e)’s directive to canvass all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders was to be given real force. This study’s goal was therefore to identify what considerations may be impeding or encouraging the application of section 718.2 (e)’s directive through a constructivist discourse analysis of 33 court of appeal cases. The study has mapped trends and influences which weigh strongly on sentencing judges in the decision-making process and considerations that are affecting the application of this provision. Prohibitive and permissive dimensions of the Gladue case were identified related to the application of section 718.2 (e), creating competing ideals in the application of the provision. Modern Penal Rationality (MPR) underpinned many of the judges’ justifications. However, unforeseen considerations were also noted. Ultimately, MPR, dominates the sentencing calculus and diminishes section 718.2 (e)’s application and alternative/restorative potential.

Page generated in 0.1449 seconds