With prison sentences of 50, 100 or 150 years, where is the possibility of rehabilitation for the offender? asked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, HaveRichard Wagner. The high court is considering Thursday morning the case of Alexandre Bissonnette, who killed six men at the Quebec mosque in 2017.
In some cases, rehabilitation must take a back seat, and a sentence must be imposed that reflects the seriousness of the crime committed, retorted Mr.and François Godin for the Attorney General of Quebec.
He recalled the horror of January 29, 2017: Alexandre Bissonnette killed six worshipers who were in the great mosque of Quebec, including three “by summary execution”. He made 40 attempted murders, including four on children. It was a crime motivated by hate, and planned for a long time, detailed the lawyer. The shooter was sentenced to life in prison.
Judge Wagner interrupted him. Yes, it is a horrible crime, based on Islamophobia, which will leave scars for a long time. But the question is: with such long sentences, what do we do with rehabilitation, one of the fundamental values of our justice system?
Trust in the system
If sentences aren’t tough enough, the public will rightly lose faith in the justice system, Ms.and Godin.
He is before the Court to defend the article of the Criminal Code which allows since 2011, in the event of multiple murders, to have much longer prison sentences.
First degree murder carries a life sentence, with no possibility of parole for 25 years. But in 2011, the Harper government added a provision to the Criminal Code that allows these 25-year periods of parole ineligibility to be added together — one period per murder. Given the six murders he committed, Alexandre Bissonnette’s prison sentence could reach 150 years.
At first instance, the judge sentenced him to 40 years in prison. The Court of Appeal reduced this period without the possibility of parole to 25 years and struck down section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which allows stacking.
It is the constitutionality of this provision that is being debated before the Supreme Court.
If the governments of Quebec and Canada argue that it is valid, many groups and associations will argue that such penalties violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment”.
The debate continues Thursday morning before the highest court in the country.