@FCfromSSC comments on "Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

Shaming.
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
Recruiting for a cause.
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Glassnoser 1yr ago · Edited 1yr ago

B.C. top court broadens sentencing law aimed at reducing indigenous incarceration rates

British Columbia’s top court has broadened the sweep of a sentencing law meant to reduce incarceration rates among indigenous peoples, ruling that indigenous-specific sentencing can be applied even to offenders who have become disconnected from Indigenous communities and are only minimally aware of their heritage.

...

The decision reduces a five-year prison sentence to four in a case involving an unprovoked, near-fatal stabbing.

The offender, David Kehoe, is a Métis man who prosecutors argued had not been aware until recently of his indigenous background. He was convicted of aggravated assault after he used a kitchen knife to stab a man who had played loud music in the parking lot of an apartment building where Mr. Kehoe lived.

Mr. Kehoe, who was 30 at the time of the 2018 stabbing, had a record of 33 prior offences as a youth and as an adult. (The victim suffered a lacerated liver and punctured lung, and received life-saving surgery. He did not submit a victim-impact statement at Mr. Kehoe’s sentencing hearing.)

Under federal sentencing law, judges must pay particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders. The Supreme Court interpreted that law in a case called Gladue (which involved a fatal stabbing) to mean that the history of colonization has harmed indigenous peoples, and that they are therefore entitled to special efforts to reduce their overrepresentation in the penal system. Social workers and others write “Gladue reports” for judges at sentencing time to detail indigenous-related background factors.

As of Christmas Day, 34 per cent of federal male prisoners were indigenous, and among female prisoners the rate was 48 per cent, according to the Office of the Correctional Investigator. Indigenous peoples account for a little over 5 per cent of the country’s population. In 1997, they made up 3 per cent of the population and 12 per cent of men in federal prison.

B.C. prosecutor Grant Lindsey noted in his arguments that Mr. Kehoe’s parents and grandparents had not gone to residential schools. His criminality was related in part to growing up with a non-indigenous stepfather who used and trafficked drugs, Mr. Lindsey said. Justice Alan Ross of the B.C. Supreme Court accepted that there was little nexus between Mr. Kehoe’s indigenous background and his crime, and sentenced him to five years in prison.

Justice Marchand, who was appointed by the Trudeau government to the appeal court in 2021, added it was not “simply a coincidence” that Mr. Kehoe’s Métis mother had fallen into an unstable, dysfunctional environment. He cited the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls to make that point.

Some additional background. In Canada, indigenous people have a lot of problems. They tend to be poor, especially if they live on reserves. Many of them have drug and alcohol abuse problems, and they commit a lot of crime, especially violent crime. There's a lot of teen pregnancy, and in general, many of them live what most people consider to be highly dysfunctional lives.

It has recently become accepted wisdom that this is definitely entirely due to their historical mistreatment, especially their attendance at residential schools, which were designed to forcibly assimilate indigenous children into Western culture. The evidence supporting this is weak.

I have a few questions about this and similar cases.

Why are prison sentences so low in Canada to begin with? You often hear cases where someone kills multiple people and they get sentenced to under ten years in prison. After accounting for credit for time served and parole, they're often only in prison for a few years. Is there evidence supporting this approach to reducing crime?

Is there any reason why the optimal sentences for indigenous convicts are lower than for non-indigenous convicts?

Does it really make sense to blame the offender's dysfunctional background on his indigenous ancestry?

Does it even make sense to blame his criminal behaviour on his dysfunctional background?

Why are crime rates among the indigenous increasing?

Context

Gdanning Glassnoser 1yr ago

This law has apparently been in effect since 1995, so this is not exactly news.

The question is not whether the law is optimal; it is whether it is just. The law says: "(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders." I don't know enough about the history of treatment of Aboriginals in Canada, nor enough about the actual effect of the law on actual sentencing, to opine one way or th other.

Surely that depends on the individual. Here is the operative law:

I pause here to note that both learned defence counsel and Crown counsel acknowledge that, given the totality of the circumstances, a custodial disposition is necessary. But the court goes on to state that it is important for the court, when sentencing any individual offender, to have particular consideration given to the systematic racism and effects of colonization that have been foisted upon Indigenous persons in this country for decades. In that regard, the court has made it clear that in some circumstances, this should be considered a mitigating factor and might result in a disposition that might not otherwise be appropriate for non‑Indigenous offenders.

[27] However, at para. 78 in Gladue, the court had this to say:

[78] In describing the effect of s. 718.2(e) in this way, we do not mean to suggest that, as a general practice, aboriginal offenders must always be sentenced in a manner which gives greatest weight to the principles of restorative justice, and less weight to goals such as deterrence, denunciation, and separation. It is unreasonable to assume that aboriginal peoples themselves do not believe in the importance of these latter goals, and even if they do not, that such goals must not predominate in appropriate cases. Clearly there are some serious offences and some offenders for which and for whom separation, denunciation, and deterrence are fundamentally relevant.

[28] The court went on to state at the next paragraph the following:

[79] Yet, even where an offence is considered serious, the length of the term of imprisonment must be considered. In some circumstances the length of the sentence of an aboriginal offender may be less and in others the same as that of any other offender. ...

[29] Then finally at para. 80:

[80] As with all sentencing decisions, the sentencing of aboriginal offenders must proceed on an individual (or a case-by-case) basis: For this offence, committed by this offender, harming this victim, in this community, what is the appropriate sanction under the Criminal Code? ...[Emphasis in original]

[30] Some years later, the Supreme Court of Canada in Ipeelee revisited these principles that were enunciated in Gladue and expressed some concern with the effectiveness of s. 718.2(e) in sentencing decisions, but generally accepted and acknowledged the statements contained in Gladue.

[31] At para. 72, the court stated the following:

[72] ... The methodology set out by this Court in Gladue is designed to focus on those unique circumstances of an Aboriginal offender which could reasonably and justifiably impact on the sentence imposed. Gladue directs sentencing judges to consider: (1) the unique systemic and background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts ...

[32] At the same time, at para. 75, the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that that particular provision does not create “a race‑based discount on sentencing.” It states that:

[75] ... The provision does not ask courts to remedy the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in prisons by artificially reducing incarceration rates. Rather, sentencing judges are required to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders in order to endeavour to achieve a truly fit and proper sentence in any particular case. This has been, and continues to be, the fundamental duty of a sentencing judge. ...

[33] These particular principles outlined in Ipeelee and Gladue were recently commented upon by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Altiman, a 2018 [sic ‑ 2019] decision which again acknowledges the necessity to take into consideration the background and history of Indigenous persons in this particular situation; that is, before the courts facing criminal charges.

[34] Being guided by these principles and directions, applying them to the particular circumstances in this case and the victims, and Mr. Thomas's personal circumstances, the question is what is a fit and just sentence that properly reflects all of the relevant fundamental principles of sentencing?

It does not seem to me that there is a whole lot to see here, but perhaps there is; perhaps there is research that attempts to show the effect of the provision on actual sentences is large.

-5

What is this place?

Why are you called The Motte?

New post guidelines

Rules

Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats