The sentencing last week of Alexandre Bissonette and Bruce McArthur for multiple murders have put the focus once again on Canada's laws on life sentences.
First degree murder attracts a mandatory life sentence, along with a minimum 25 years of ineligibility for parole. If parole is refused, hearings are automatically held every two years thereafter, until the prisoner either dies or is released. A person can not be sentenced to more than one life sentence (life is life), no matter how many victims they have killed, but the period of parole ineligibility can be tweaked. In 2011, the Criminal Code was amended by the Conservative federal government of Stephen Harper to allow consecutive periods of parole inelegibility in such cases, also known as "stacking" (e.g. 50 years, 75 years, etc). So, a life sentence is still a life sentence, regardless of single or multiple murders, but the parole rules can be tweaked so that "life" actually dies mean "life", rather than potentially just 25 years. In fact, in practice, parole hearings very rarely lead to a release in the case of serious crimes like multiple murders, but there is still a possibility, so this has an important psychological as well as legal effect.
Since 2011, this kind of parole stacking has been employed several times, the latest of those being for Dellen Millard, who was given a life sentence for three murders in December 2018, and it was specified that he will not be eligible for a parole hearing for 75 years. In the two most recent cases, though, McArthur was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for just 25 years for his 8 murders, and Bissonette is not eligible for parole for 40 years for his 6 murders. MacArthur is 66, so 25 years will take him to 91 years old, which is technically possibly but unlikely: this is effectively a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Bisonette, though, is only 30, so he will come up for a parole hearing when he is 70, which is quite feasible (and a distinct worry expressed by some of the victims' family members).
So, in both of these high-profile cases, the judges chose not to take advantage of the legal availability of consecutive parole inelgibility periods. The Quebec Superior Court judge in the Bissonette case specifically argued that disallowing parole for 50 years or more (the prosecution called for the maximum of 150 years) would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" and would compromise Bissonette's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that any sentence that exceeds a person's life expectancy and offers no hope of release is necessarily "grossly disproportionate and totally incompatible with human dignity". The sentencing will almost certainly be appealed, and many people do not consider that justice has been well served by these decisions.
It's a tough one, particularly when we are talking about multiples murders and hate crimes to boot (of Muslims in one case, and homosexuals in the other). How much dignity do these guys really have, or deserve? Shouldn't the murder of 6 or 8 individuals be punished more aggressively than a single murder? What kind of message do sentences like these send about the severity of the crimes? Shouldn't a life sentence be for, well, life, and not just 25 years? Can any prison sentence handed out for a multiple murder be considered "cruel and unusual"?
It certainly makes me glad I am not a judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment