Canadian Constitution
The constitution is the basic system of laws of a country, which defines and limits the powers of the ruling body. The Canadian constitution is a written document, which states the rules that construe and interpret the powers of federal and provincial governments, and authenticate the responsibilities and rights of the Canadian citizens. Among these laws are section 7, 11, 12 which set out rights that protect us in our dealings with the justice system. These specific sections ensure that individuals who are involved in legal proceedings are treated fairly and equally. In three specific cases, the funedamental rights, entrenched in the charter, challenged legislation. In the case of R. v. Morgentaler abortion laws were struck down because they violated the liberty and security of the women. Section 11(b) was used to rightfully dismiss the case of R. v. Askov because the trial was unreasonably delayed. The accused in the case of R. v. Smith was given an excessively cruel punishment, which is inconsistent with section 12 of the charter. Section 7 of the constitution states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in the accordance with the pr
unnecessary requirements that only significantly delay a pregnant woman's access to Section 12 states that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. This section ensures that the government cannot treat individuals in a harsh manner or punish them excessively. Section 12 governs the quality of the punishment and is concerned with the effect the punishment will have on the accused. In R. v. Smith, section 12 was used to challenge the Narcotics Control Act that requires a minimum sentence of seven years. The accused was caught importing seven and a half ounces of cocaine into Canada, but thought a seven year minimum sentence was grossly excessive. They found the accused guilty and imposed an eight year sentence, because they thought that the Narcotics Control Act was not inconsistent with the charter. I believe that the Narcotics Control Act is in disagreement with section 12 because legislation has completely disregarded specific circumstances for each case. The personal characteristics of the offender and the personal circumstances of the case are not looked at when implementing the Narcotics Control Act. The quantity of drugs imported and the purpose of the importation are irrelevant to the minimum sentence. It doesn't matter if the drugs are for personal consumption or if it is specifically for trafficking, the sentence remains the same. The previous criminal record of the offender is also irrelevant when dealing with the offence of importation, therefore. With these circumstances overlooked, a verdict of guilt would lead to, in some cases, excessive punishment. This means that someone who travels to Canada with no previous criminal record and is caught importing an extremely small amount of marijuana for personal use would be given the minimum sentence of seven years. This sentence violates section 12 because it is cruel punishment which outrages the standards of decency. The harsh sentence is not necessary when sentencing small offenders and does not deter seriouse offenders. Specific factors must be looked at in order to obtain a fair sentence. medical treatment. Stalling medical treatment results in additional danger to the woman's health, depriving her of her right to security of a person
Some common words found in the essay are:
Court Canada, Control Act, , Dr Morgentaler, Canada Section, section 7, section 12, security person, narcotics control act, narcotics control, section 11b, minimum sentence, control act, Narcotics Control, Supreme Court, section 7 guarantees, 7 guarantees, liberty security, section 251, supreme court canada, previous criminal record, section 11 section,
Approximate Word count = 1530
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
