INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Persons convicted of first or second degree murder before the age of 18 may appeal the number of years in excess of the minimum period of imprisonment without parole eligibility.
SECTION WORDING
675(2.2) A person who was under the age of eighteen at the time of the commission of the offence for which the person was convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served the period specified by the judge presiding at the trial may appeal to the court of appeal against the number of years in excess of the minimum number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole that are required to be served in respect of that person’s case.
EXPLANATION
Section 675(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that relates to individuals who were under the age of eighteen at the time of the commission of first or second-degree murder. This provision allows such individuals, who have been sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until they have served the period specified by the judge presiding at their trial, to appeal against the number of years in excess of the minimum number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole required in their case. The purpose of this provision is to recognize the unique circumstances of young offenders who have committed these heinous crimes. The law recognizes that children who commit murder are not fully capable of understanding the gravity of their actions and may be more susceptible to influence or pressure from others. Therefore, they should not be sentenced in the same way as adult offenders. By allowing young offenders to appeal against the number of years in excess of the minimum sentence required, the court ensures that the sentence imposed is more appropriate to the offender's age, and the offender is given a chance to redeem his life with a potential for parole after serving the minimum required sentence. Furthermore, this provision also ensures that courts take into account the guiding principles of youth criminal justice, such as proportionality, rehabilitation and reintegrating the youth back into society when imposing sentences on youth convicted of homicide felonies. Section 675(2.2) is an essential provision that reflects Canada's commitment to recognizing the reformative potential of young offenders and to promote a fair criminal justice process for individuals in that age group.
COMMENTARY
Section 675(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada was introduced in order to provide some measure of hope to young offenders who are sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Prior to the introduction of this section, young offenders who were convicted of first or second degree murder and handed down a sentence of life imprisonment were not allowed to apply for parole until they had served a minimum number of years in prison, as specified by the presiding judge at their trial. This meant that the majority of these offenders would spend many years in prison before they had any chance of being released into the community. However, Section 675(2.2) now allows young offenders who were under 18 at the time of their offence to appeal against the number of years they are required to serve in prison before becoming eligible for parole. This means that they may be able to have their sentence reduced, and possibly even be released from prison earlier. This section of the Criminal Code of Canada has been widely praised as a compassionate response to the needs of young offenders. It recognizes that young people are often impulsive and make poor decisions, and that they may not fully understand the consequences of their actions. By allowing them to appeal against their sentence, the Criminal Code acknowledges that young offenders have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and become productive members of society. However, not everyone agrees with this section of the Criminal Code. Some argue that it is too lenient on young offenders, and that it sends the wrong message to society about the seriousness of their offences. They argue that if a young person is old enough to commit murder, then they are old enough to face the full consequences of their actions. Despite these criticisms, Section 675(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada remains in place as a reflection of the Canadian justice system's belief in the potential for rehabilitation and second chances. It sends a message to young offenders that they are not defined by their mistakes, and that there is hope for a better future if they are willing to learn from their past.
STRATEGY
Section 675(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an opportunity for individuals who were under the age of eighteen at the time of the commission of the offence for which they were convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole to appeal against the number of additional years they must serve before being eligible to apply for parole. This section of the Criminal Code has significant implications for the legal system in Canada, particularly for those who have been convicted of murder before the age of eighteen. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that lawyers and other legal practitioners must take into account. First and foremost, it is essential to gain a thorough understanding of the legal and procedural requirements of the appellate process. This includes not only the requirements of the Criminal Code itself but also the rules and procedures of the appellate court. It is important to ensure that all of the necessary documentation and materials are prepared and presented in a clear and concise manner to maximize the chances of success. Another strategic consideration when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code is the potential impact of the case on future cases. The outcome of this type of case can set important precedents that will have implications for future cases involving individuals who were convicted of murder before the age of eighteen. As such, it is crucial to carefully consider the potential implications of different legal strategies and arguments in order to develop a case strategy that maximizes the chances of success while also setting a favorable precedent. One strategy that could be employed when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code is to present evidence that demonstrates the individual's capacity for rehabilitation and reform. This could include, for example, evidence of the individual's efforts to take responsibility for their actions and make amends for their past behavior, as well as evidence of their engagement in education or other forms of therapy that demonstrate their commitment to making positive changes in their lives. By highlighting these factors, it may be possible to demonstrate that the individual is not a threat to society and to secure a reduction in the length of the sentence. Another potential strategy when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code is to argue that the sentence is disproportionate given the individual's age and maturity at the time of the offense. This argument may be particularly persuasive in cases where the individual was younger than the age of majority at the time of the offense and may not have fully understood the implications of their actions. By highlighting these factors, it may be possible to secure a more lenient sentence for the individual. In conclusion, section 675(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an opportunity for individuals who were convicted of murder before the age of eighteen to appeal against their sentence. However, dealing with this section of the Criminal Code requires a careful consideration of the legal and procedural requirements of the appellate process, as well as the potential implications of different legal strategies. By carefully preparing and presenting a strong case, it may be possible to secure a more favorable outcome for the individual and set an important precedent for future cases.