Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Post Reply New Topic

In R v. Nur (http://canlii.ca/t/gh5ms), the Supreme Court of Canada struck down mandatory minimum statues as they do not always correspond to the the degree of culpability that the offender has committed. Using the 'reasonable hypothetical' argument, the court opinion authored by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlan conceded that the very nature of mandatory minimums are flawed, as the nature of the contested statue is extraordinarily broad and could unfairly punish those with minor malicious conduct. In essence, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments is inclusive of punishments that are disproportionate to the offence committed.

On the other hand, the US Supreme Court holds a much more conservative approach. In its jurisprudence, the court has held that the 8th Amendment should normally restricted only to punishments that are physical in nature, and should not be construed as restricting penalties that are excessive in proportion to the conduct that it seeks to punish.

Which judicial interpretation of Cruel and Unusual punishment do you agree with most?

Please discuss.

That's a tough one.

But the thought behind mandatory minimums is, I believe, partially due to "setting standards."

Without minimums it's felt different judges can and will easily just assign their personal preference to a judgement. It's just human nature.

This could mean a difference in many years of incarceration depending on whether the judge happened to
be either "strict" or "lenient." NOT FAIR! You can not depend on getting justice when it depends, possibly,
on the personality of the judge. We've all read accounts where this is shown to be disastrous (demonstrated in ALL countries).