On Tuesday, Canada’s Supreme Court will hear pivotal arguments regarding the criteria for considering a young person as an adult for sentencing.
The outcome may significantly impact the way youth are sentenced in Canada and potentially influence similar legal frameworks in other Western nations.
The cases in question involve I.M. and S.B., two young men whose identities are protected under Canadian law due to the nature of their crimes, which occurred while they were minors.
I.M., then 17, was convicted of first-degree murder following a stabbing incident in 2011, while S.B., at 16, faced similar charges for a shooting in 2010. Both were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years.
They are appealing their adult sentences, asserting that the prosecution failed to adequately rebut the presumption of their “diminished moral blameworthiness” as minors.
Under Canadian law, individuals accused of crimes committed before turning 18 are deemed less culpable due to their immaturity, and prosecutors can seek to have them treated as adults.
A key 2008 Supreme Court ruling established that the burden lies with the prosecution to demonstrate that a youth’s moral culpability has been sufficiently rebutted for an adult sentence to be warranted.
The defense attorneys for I.M. and S.B. contend that the threshold for meeting this burden should be high and necessitate expert testimony.
They argue that it is insufficient for a crime to simply be serious; rather, the young person must also demonstrate the maturity necessary for an adult sentence.
The government counters that the seriousness of the offense is pertinent to evaluating moral blameworthiness and asserts that expert evidence is not essential.
Legal experts indicate that it is increasingly common for young offenders involved in serious crimes to be sentenced as adults.
According to Professor Debra Parkes from the University of British Columbia, in a study of 102 murder cases involving youths, prosecutors pursued adult sentences in 89 cases, with 62 resulting in life sentences.
“The norm is to impose adult sentences when the charge is murder,” she noted.
Nader Hasan, representing I.M., expressed that a decision from the Supreme Court could provide clarity on the conditions under which a child may be sentenced as an adult, addressing current inconsistencies.
“The presumption should be that kids are sentenced as kids unless there’s a compelling reason not to,” he stated, emphasizing that such a rationale should be backed by expert evidence.
He added, “If we’re successful, I hope this case can serve as a positive example of what youth sentencing in a democracy should look like.”
Source-usnews
