Everybody is Dangerous Now: Case Comment on R v Boutilier

In recent years, the legal landscape surrounding dangerous offender designations in Canada has undergone significant scrutiny. The case of R v Boutilier has brought to light profound questions about the constitutionality of these provisions and their implications for the judicial system. Understanding these elements is crucial for anyone interested in Canadian law, particularly those residing in Ontario, where many individuals may find themselves involved in the legal system.

R v Boutilier: Trial Decision and Appeal Insights

The Boutilier case, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in May 2017, questioned the constitutional validity of the dangerous offender provisions. The trial court initially deemed these provisions unconstitutional, challenging their alignment with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically sections 7 and 12.

Section 7 safeguards individuals against the arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty unless due process is followed, emphasizing that laws should not be overly broad. Conversely, section 12 prohibits grossly disproportionate punishment. The defense argued that the dangerous offender regime was excessively broad and failed to target only those who posed a true risk to society.

The core of the argument hinged on the understanding that treatment options were not adequately considered during the designation process. This oversight led to individuals who might be rehabilitated being labeled as dangerous offenders, which subsequently resulted in indeterminate sentences—even when there was no clear evidence that they posed a significant risk to public safety.

The court outlined four pathways to a dangerous offender designation, which can include a surprisingly broad range of offenses. For example, non-violent criminal activities, like bank note robbery or possession of weapons, can lead to such a label, raising concerns about the fairness and accuracy of the current legal framework.

Upon appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal overturned the initial ruling, asserting that the law was rationally connected to its legislative purpose. The judges concluded that a dangerous offender designation did not automatically lead to grossly disproportionate sentences, despite the defense's concerns.

Trends and Statistics on Dangerous Offender Designations

Recent statistics reveal a troubling trend: the number of dangerous offender designations in Canada is on the rise. According to the Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview 2016, there were 802 individuals classified as dangerous offenders by the end of the fiscal year 2015-2016, with 65 newly designated in just that year alone.

To understand the implications of these numbers, consider the following points:

• A significant increase from 40 designations in 2013-2014 to 65 in 2015-2016.
• Approximately 86% of these offenders received indeterminate sentences.
• Only 50 individuals were living in the community under supervision.

Furthermore, a stark reality emerges for these offenders: they rarely gain access to parole. In 2014-2015, individuals serving indeterminate sentences accounted for a mere 1% of day parole grants, with no successful full parole applications during that time.

Interestingly, data suggests that dangerous offenders are statistically less likely to have their parole revoked for non-violent offenses, highlighting a complex dynamic within the parole system:

Between 1994-2015, 2,598 offenders with indeterminate sentences completed 3,024 periods of federal full parole supervision. Of these, 54% remained active, while 20% ended due to the offender's death, and 15% faced revocations for breach of conditions.

Such statistics underscore a critical point: offenders with indeterminate sentences are, paradoxically, more likely to die than to commit violent offenses, prompting discussions about the effectiveness and fairness of the dangerous offender legislation.

Implications of Dangerous Offender Designations

The widespread application of dangerous offender designations raises significant concerns regarding justice and rehabilitation. It appears that the current framework now captures a broader spectrum of offenders than ever before. This shift means that even individuals with minimal violent histories may be subjected to these severe legal labels.

One major concern is the reliance on psychiatric evaluations to predict future behavior. The Crown often triggers this process through an application for evaluation, leading to assessments based on standardized tests. These assessments can be problematic, especially considering:

• Psychiatric predictions lack the accuracy required for such severe legal consequences.
• Individuals may not participate in evaluations, leading to assessments based solely on historical behavior without context.
• The absence of a mechanism to challenge or correct errors in evaluations can result in unjust outcomes.

The widening definition of dangerous offenders means that more people face the risk of being unjustly categorized, often based on factors that do not accurately reflect their potential for rehabilitation. Once designated as dangerous offenders, individuals often find themselves in a legal framework that presumes indeterminate sentences, with little hope for release.

The Need for Legislative Reassessment

Given the increasing number of dangerous offender designations and the concerns surrounding their implications, there's a pressing need for legislative reassessment. The current framework may inadvertently perpetuate injustice by failing to account for individual circumstances, particularly regarding the potential for rehabilitation.

Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada’s potential decisions on this matter could significantly reshape the landscape of dangerous offender provisions. Legal experts and advocates are keenly awaiting clarity on the constitutional limits of these provisions, as it would have profound implications for the rights of offenders and public safety.

As this dialogue continues, it is essential for individuals in Ontario, particularly in urban centers like Toronto, Mississauga, and Ottawa, to stay informed about their rights and the evolving laws surrounding dangerous offenders. Engaging with knowledgeable legal professionals can provide essential guidance through these complexities.

The lawyers at Hicks Adams have extensive experience in navigating these intricate legal waters. If you or someone you know is facing issues related to dangerous offender designations or any criminal matter, contact us for expert legal support in Ontario.

Interested in similar topics to Everybody is Dangerous Now: Case Comment on R v Boutilier? Explore more in the Legal Process and Defence Strategies category.