Your search

Using insights from Critical Race Theory (“CRT”), this article illustrates how Canada’s proportionality-driven criminal sentencing structure (re)produces, invigorates, and sustains pernicious race-based discourses. Indeed, the concept of proportionality can reinforce archaic norms and notions about Black bodies’ status, belonging, identity, and worth. Moreover, the demands of proportionality, with its fixation on calibrating blame, can distort and pathologize Black lives in a perverse attempt at sentence mitigation, resulting in what I refer to as the paradox of visibility. The article uses an analysis of Impact of Race and Culture Assessments (IRCAs) reports to explore paradoxical race visibility. This allows us to better comprehend and redefine the impact of incorporating race awareness into the criminal sentencing process, which can have positive and negative consequences. Indeed, introducing race at the sentencing phase is a challenging and perhaps even a paradoxical manoeuvre—but one that may also be logical insofar as we operate within the cruel illogic of white supremacy.

Legal scholars have long discussed the Supreme Court of Canada’s (”the Court”) erasure of race in its Charter jurisprudence. The lack of recognition is particularly noticeable in the Court’s jurisprudence on policing. It is well-established that African-Canadians and Indigenous people are disproportionately detained, arrested and charged by police, and thereby overrepresented in the criminal process. Criminologists and legal scholars largely agree that biased policing is one of the primary conduits through which Black, Indigenous and other racialized bodies are funnelled into the criminal justice system. Despite this fact, the Court has only ever marginally engaged in a race-based analysis of the Charter rights that are engaged by police encounters. In R. v. Le, the Court may have potentially lifted the judicial embargo on the discussion of race and biased policing; and, in so doing made a significant and much needed, contribution to critical race Charter litigation. The precedential impact of Le is challenging to predict, but there is reason to hope that Le will provide a veritable roadmap for lawyers who are seeking to mobilize race in the detention analysis under s. 9 of the Charter.

Scholars and practitioners have long called for a sentencing methodology that incorporates the social realities of Black Canadians and thereby takes seriously the ameliorative impacts that judicial recognition of systemic anti-Black racism could have on sentencing outcomes — including quantitative impacts on the length of individual criminal sentences and qualitative impacts on the mode of criminal sentence. In Ontario, the criminal jurisprudence around the sentencing of Black offenders has dramatically increased in the past few years, culminating in the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s (”the ONCA”) decision in R. v. Morris. However, while the ONCA has long acknowledged the plights of Black Canadians at the hands of the criminal justice system, until Morris, the ONCA has not explicitly discussed what, if any, role that acknowledgement should play in crafting a proportionate sentence for a Black offender. Through its sustained analysis of this urgent question, Morris may represent a watershed moment in the criminal jurisprudence relating to the sentencing of Black offenders.

Those determining bail must reflect on their own beliefs and show restraint as they determine risk to avoid relying on false racist narratives. So should those calling for bail reform.

This article analyzes interview data from nine Black criminalized individuals and nine defence lawyers (five white, three Black, and one Arab) about the utility of heightened race visibility in sentencing proceedings. The data reveals a schism between these groups, reflecting different responses to what I refer to as “the paradox of visibility.” For Black people, this paradox occurs when an emphasis on race may simultaneously have a deleterious and ameliorating impact on sentencing. Defence lawyers and judges laud the ameliorative potential of race visibility, which obscures the genuine concern shared by criminalized Black individuals about how they believe their Blackness betrays them in the criminal sentencing context. In this regard, the article explores ethical concerns arising from this paradox. It also argues that race-based strategies at sentencing are not a no-cost or low-cost proposition. Indeed, from the criminalized research participants’ point of view, the cost is not only the risk that an emphasis on race may result in a higher sentence, including longer and harsher custodial sentences, but also an affront to their dignity. In contrast, the defence lawyers strongly supported increased racial visibility to combat what they saw as judicial and prosecutorial intransigence to grapple with race in sentencing proceedings. These perspectives are critical for sentencing judges tasked with sentencing Black individuals and for lawyers who are developing and deploying legal strategies to assist their Black clients.

Ottawa police sergeant Steven Desjourdy was the first officer in Canada to be prosecuted for sexual assault based upon an illegal strip search of a woman, arguably a “sexual assault by the state.”1 Sexual assault prosecutions present innumerable hurdles for all complainants, but when the accused is a police officer engaged in his duties, those hurdles are almost insurmountable. The prospect of racism loomed large in this case, given that Desjourdy was white and SB was a Black Canadian woman portrayed as volatile and dangerous. Using the transcripts of Desjourdy’s trial and drawing upon sexual assault and critical race literatures, this article explores the systemic biases that favour police officers on trial and facilitate the construction of white innocence and racialized danger.

English Abstract: Ottawa police sergeant Steven Desjourdy was the first officer in Canada to be prosecuted for sexual assault based upon an illegal strip search of a woman, arguably a “sexual assault by the state.”1 Sexual assault prosecutions present innumerable hurdles for all complainants, but when the accused is a police officer engaged in his duties, those hurdles are almost insurmountable. The prospect of racism loomed large in this case, given that Desjourdy was white and SB was a Black Canadian woman portrayed as volatile and dangerous. Using the transcripts of Desjourdy’s trial and drawing upon sexual assault and critical race literatures, this article explores the systemic biases that favour police officers on trial and facilitate the construction of white innocence and racialized danger.French Abstract: Le sergent Steven Desjourdy, de la police d’Ottawa, a été le premier policier au Canada à être poursuivi en justice pour agression sexuelle à la suite d’une fouille à nu illégale d’une femme, ce qui constitue sans doute une « agression sexuelle par l’État ». Les poursuites pour agression sexuelle présentent d’innombrables obstacles pour tous les plaignants, mais lorsque l’accusé est un policier dans l’exercice de ses fonctions, ces obstacles sont presque insurmontables. La perspective du racisme était très présente dans cette affaire, étant donné que Steven Desjourdy était blanc et que SB était une femme noire canadienne décrite comme volatile et dangereuse. À l’aide des transcriptions du procès de Steven Desjourdy et en s’appuyant sur les écrits en matière d’agressions sexuelles et de critiques de la race, les auteurs explorent les préjugés systémiques qui favorisent les policiers en instance de procès et facilitent la fabrication de la chimère d’une innocence blanche et d’un danger racialisé.* Assistant Professor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law; PhD candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School.**Professor Emerita, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.1 Amanda George, “Strip searches: Sexual Assault by the State” (1993) 18:1 Alternative LJ 31.

14 — Notes and Comments

14 — Notes and Comments