Justice committee  No. My argument was that they would have to look at the purpose and effect of the sentence to determine gross disproportionality, which is the test for cruel and unusual punishment. They would do it afresh. They weren't being deferential to Parliament. They were saying that Parli

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  No, that is the second edition—the 2008 edition.

Justice committee  The publisher is Emond Montgomery. They'd be happy to fill your request.

Justice committee  You'd have to give me an example, but I think criminal law policy should be determined by Parliament and based on evidence, experience, reason, and judgment—not on ideology. These bills represent what criminologists call “penal populism”. It's a way of pandering to an electorate

Justice committee  No, I've covered all the points I wanted to cover, other than some specific arguments. I'd rather listen to questions and respond to them.

Justice committee  In the criminal process there's a distinction between the adjudication of guilt and the sentencing stage. In murder cases, other than for second-degree murder in the 10- to 25-year period, the sentence is mandatory. A judge would have to make a constitutional ruling on part of th

Justice committee  No, because you see, our Supreme Court has said time and time again that sentencing is an individualized process, and section 12—cruel and unusual—looks at the individual, either the offender or a reasonable hypothetical, and compares culpability with that person's circumstances.

Justice committee  Your logic is wrong. Your argument is up to you, but your logic is wrong.

Justice committee  I was deputy territorial court judge for a year.

Justice committee  You could be right. I think that's unfortunate. I'm constantly trying to remind the media that we have a mandatory penalty of life. There are differences with respect to parole eligibility, but the person sentenced for murder is supervised for life.

Justice committee  It's quite possible, and I think it's unfortunate that we don't do a better job of informing them.

Justice committee  No. If the public suffers from a misconception, then we ought to correct the misconception. We shouldn't be pandering to it. This legislation panders to a number of misconceptions.

Justice committee  And I'm suggesting that we maintain it. This bill wants to do away with it.

Justice committee  Maybe, but I don't know that. You said you suspected it. Maybe we have to do a better job. If we've done a bad job of educating the public, surely the answer is do a better job, not to fiddle with the nuts and bolts of the sentencing regime for our most serious crime.