Article Misses Key Aspect of Sentencing?

According to an article in the Globe and Mail today (Kirk Makin, “Top Court Urged to Overhaul Sentencing,” Thursday, December 9, 2010) three of five judges on an Alberta Court of Appeal panel claimed there is a lack of confidence in the judiciary stemming from “wide disparities in sentences.” The Globe’s justice reporter, Kirk Makin, that the Conservative government may utilize the panel’s opinion in their plan to push minimum sentences.

The three judges on the panel who made up the majority – Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, Mr. Justice Jean Cote, and Mr. Justice Jack Watson – commented that Courts of Appeal in Canada should rein in sentencing by trial judges. Moreover, the majority urged both the Supreme Court of Canada and parliament to react to apparent disparities in sexual assault cases.

The particular sentence that the Alberta Court of Appeal panel was reviewing was a case in which an Aboriginal man, Jordan Arcand, committed a sexual assault against a friend of his who was passed out after they had been drinking. The judges said that Mr. Arcand’s sentence, handed out by Judge P.L. Adilman, Court of Queeen’s Bench Alberta, of 90 days was “based on outdated myths and stereotypes” about sexual assaults.

One wonders, however, to what degree the panel acknowledged the role that Gladue considerations played in Judge Adilman’s sentencing. The fact that Gladue factors should have been considered with regard to Mr. Arcand’s sentence is not discussed at all. If the trial judge did take into account the systemic issues leading to overrepresentation of Aboriginal peoples in the criminal justice system he was doing his job correctly. The article also fails to examine to what degree courts are taking seriously their obligations to Aboriginal offenders at sentencing and whether this is having an impact on terms of imprisonment.

It seems that once again, outmoded ways of thinking are erasing the significant facts about the criminalization of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.