Life Imprisonment Without Realistic Possibility Of Parole Unconstitutional: Canada SC
📜 Background: Life Imprisonment and Parole in Canada
In Canada, certain offenders receive life sentences for serious crimes, notably murder. However, the system also provides for parole eligibility after a fixed period (often 25 years), allowing for reintegration if the offender no longer poses a threat.
A controversial issue arises when an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment without any realistic possibility of parole, effectively meaning imprisonment for life without hope of release.
⚖️ Supreme Court of Canada’s Position
Key Case: R. v. Bissonnette (2022 SCC 23)
The Supreme Court ruled that imposing life sentences without a realistic possibility of parole violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly:
Section 7: Right to life, liberty, and security of the person, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.
Section 12: Protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
What the Court Held:
Life imprisonment without any real chance of parole is grossly disproportionate and cruel.
It violates fundamental principles of justice because it eliminates any hope of rehabilitation or reintegration into society.
Parole eligibility is essential to preserve human dignity and the possibility of redemption.
A sentencing regime that imposes no parole eligibility is unconstitutional under the Charter.
🧠 Legal Reasoning
1. Section 7 – Right to Liberty and Security
The Court emphasized that liberty is a fundamental right and even prisoners retain certain rights.
Denying any realistic chance of parole deprives offenders of the hope and possibility of release, thus violating their right to liberty and security.
2. Section 12 – Protection Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Life without parole is punishment so harsh that it is grossly disproportionate.
The Court held that hope of parole is a critical mitigating factor that makes life sentences constitutional.
Removing this hope amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
3. Human Dignity and Rehabilitation
Sentencing must recognize the capacity for change and rehabilitation.
Denying parole forever treats offenders as perpetually dangerous and beyond reform, which is contrary to the values of Canadian justice.
🧑⚖️ Key Related Case Law
1. R. v. Nur (2015 SCC 15)
The Court struck down mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes as unconstitutional under Section 12.
Reinforced the principle that sentences must be proportionate and humane.
2. R. v. Smith (1987)
Established that punishments that are grossly disproportionate violate Section 12.
3. R. v. Swain (1991)
Emphasized that the criminal justice system must respect human dignity, including for prisoners.
📝 Summary
The Supreme Court of Canada declared that life imprisonment without a realistic possibility of parole is unconstitutional.
This ruling protects the fundamental rights of offenders, balancing society’s interest in punishment with human dignity and hope for rehabilitation.
The decision ensures that even the most serious offenders retain a meaningful prospect of release, subject to parole board assessments.
It reaffirms Canada’s commitment to a humane and just penal system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments