Opinions
La peine de mort en différé
Jean-Claude Hébert
2015-03-16 11:15:00
Pour l’auteur, avocat en droit criminel, le projet du gouvernement Harper visant à mettre fin à la libération conditionnelle pour certains criminels viole des droits fondamentaux...
Selon Stephen Harper, une peine d’emprisonnement à perpétuité doit effectivement correspondre à un emprisonnement à vie. Avant lui, le premier ministre britannique David Cameron avait brandi la formule.
Cependant, en décembre 2014, la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni a rappelé au gouvernement britannique son obligation de respecter la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme. Pendant la durée de la peine, l’État doit donner au détenu une possibilité raisonnable de se réhabiliter et d’en faire la démonstration.
La Cour suprême a reconnu que la réhabilitation n’est pas étrangère à toute peine d’emprisonnement à perpétuité. Autrement dit, en révision judiciaire, le juge doit répondre à une question simple : avant et après avoir purgé son délai minimal d’emprisonnement, le détenu a-t-il eu l’occasion de démontrer à l’organisme de libération conditionnelle qu’il n’était plus un danger public ?
Au Canada, l’idée de confier au ministre de la Sécurité publique l’examen d’une demande de libération conditionnelle (après 35 ans) et de réserver au cabinet fédéral la prise de décision (après consultation des familles des victimes) a pour effet de politiser un volet important de l’administration de la justice.
En raison de l’expertise requise et de l’information consignée dans des dossiers évolutifs, la détermination de dangerosité d’un détenu doit impérativement relever d’un organisme indépendant.
À ce jour, le critère d’une libération conditionnelle fondé sur des « circonstances exceptionnelles » renvoie à de rares cas où le détenu, atteint d’une maladie incurable, arrive en fin de vie. De toute façon, en de telles circonstances, les autorités carcérales fédérales n’auraient d’autre choix que de transférer le détenu dans un établissement hospitalier provincial. Dès lors, une libération conditionnelle relève de l’utopie.
Faut-il dévaloriser la vie d’un détenu pour revaloriser celle d’une victime ? Portée par le discours sécuritaire, la notion de dangerosité a modifié le génome de la responsabilité criminelle. En créant des catégories de criminels et des sanctions minimales, les conservateurs piétinent un principe de justice fondamentale : l’individualisation d’une peine.
Ici s’installe la confusion. Dans le discours du premier ministre Harper, la victime et le détenu sont perçus comme des vases communicants. Si la victime souffre à perpétuité, la peine infligée doit être à la hauteur de cette souffrance. C’est ainsi que la vengeance contamine la justice.
Dans une cour criminelle, le juge transforme le destin d’un accusé reconnu coupable. Son jugement confère aux événements une certaine pérennité. À la suite de l’affaire hautement médiatisée de Justin Bourque – condamné à une réclusion incompressible de 75 ans -, il est opportun de s’interroger sur le cheminement du législateur.
Jugement de référence
Deux semaines après le jugement concernant l’affaire Bourque, la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme (dans Bodein c. France) rappela que, selon le droit conventionnel européen, les peines perpétuelles sont valides, pourvu qu’elles soient compressibles, c’est-à-dire « soumises à un réexamen permettant aux autorités nationales de rechercher si, au cours de l’exécution de la peine, le détenu a tellement évolué et progressé sur le chemin de l’amendement qu’aucun motif légitime d’ordre pénologique ne permet plus de justifier son maintien en détention ».
La Cour de Strasbourg observa qu’il se dégage des éléments de droit comparé et de droit international, « une nette tendance en faveur de l’instauration d’un mécanisme spécial garantissant un premier examen dans un délai de vingt-cinq ans après l’imposition de la peine perpétuelle, puis des réexamens périodiques ».
Au regard du droit international, la volonté du gouvernement conservateur d’allonger à 35 ans, sans possibilité de libération conditionnelle, le délai minimal d’une peine à perpétuité pose problème. Éventuellement, il n’est pas exclu que la Cour suprême du Canada imite celle du Royaume-Uni.
Dans l’affaire Bourque, la légalité constitutionnelle de la peine incompressible de 75 ans pourrait légitimement être débattue en appel. À première vue, il s’agit d’une peine cruelle et inusitée, contraire à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.
Encore faut-il qu’un procureur relève le défi. À cet égard, face à l’indéniable déni de justice subi par l’accusé, le Barreau du Nouveau-Brunswick devrait assumer ses responsabilités. Il lui incombe de mandater un avocat chevronné pour interjeter appel.
Me Jean-Claude Hébert est un avocat plaideur avocat devant les tribunaux de compétence pénale, administrative et disciplinaire. Il a participé aux travaux de plusieurs commissions d'enquête et est professeur associé au département des sciences juridiques à l'Université du Québec à Montréal.
4438
Me Stéphane Lacoste
il y a 9 ansDes peines telles qu'elles sont envisagées m'apparaissent barbares et aussi contre-productive et contraire aux intérêts des payeurs de taxes (ce dernier argument aurait pourtant dû plaire à monsieur Harper). Il faut des peines minimales longues pour certaines infractions. Mais il faut aussi que l'on puisse, après une période suffisamment longue, relâché une personne qui ne constituerait alors plus une menace.
GBS
il y a 9 ansIl m'apparaît problématique qu'un dangereux criminel de 18 ans, par exemple, passe 70 ans en prison.
Pierre-H Boisvenu
il y a 9 ansCher Maitre Hébert
J'ai pris connaissance de votre article relativement au projet de loi C-53 et ma foi, votre adversion viscérale pour le gouvernement conservateur trahit encore une fois votre subjectivité et votre indifférence envers les victimes d'actes criminels.
Puis-je vous demander une faveur, la prochaine fois que vous me citerez à l'intérieur d'une de vos composition littéraire, d'avoir l'honnêteté de rapporter fidèlement ma déclaration d'une part et d'autre part, d'avoir le courage de nommer le sénateur que vous citez. Pour un auteur de votre renommée, est-ce la moindre des choses, ne croyez-vous pas.
Bien à vous.
Sénateur conservateur PH Boisvenu
DSG
il y a 9 ansIf that’s really you I would like to commend you for your hard work and for being the voice of innocent victims. Know that not all lawyers in Quebec are mindless sympathizers of criminals that use the Charter to invalidate every attempt by the government to make society a safer place and to hold people accountable for their actions. I think that being removed from society for long periods of time or even permanently is justifiable punishment for those who have demonstrated through their actions that they are unable and undeserving of living with others in a free and democratic society. Keep up the good work.
Anonyme
il y a 9 ans"votre indifférence envers les victimes d'actes criminels"
Dans la cas des meurtres, ce que vise le PL, une sentence plus longue aide les victimes comment exactement?
Dans votre cheerleading digne de Fox News, pourquoi vous ne mentionnez pas le taux de récidive infiment bas de ceux qui sont justement libérés après 25 ans? Je sais que les conservateurs n'aiment pas la science, mais quand même l'on parle seulement de statistiques, non?
Et pourquoi donner le pouvoir de révision à un ministre? Pour politiser la justice? Parce que c'est ce dont on discute, non, de politique?
Me Stéphane Lacoste
il y a 9 ansLe Sénateur Boisvenu démontre encore une fois que la vision conservatrice du droit criminel n'a que peu à voir avec la science et la prévention mais plutôt beaucoup avec la vengeance, un sentiment humain bien mal placé lorsqu'on a la responsabilité de faire des lois et d'appliquer la constitution.
Le droit criminel n'est pas là pour venger les victimes ou leur apporter réparation, il est là pour protéger la société et prévenir des actions que l'on considère inacceptables.
L'État a la responsabilité de s'élever au delà des sentiments et de faire ce qui est nécessaire pour protéger la société et ses membres. Ceci inclu de tenir compte des capacités de payer des payeurs de taxes, une chose qui devrait pourtant être considéré par les conservateurs.
DSG
il y a 9 ansSentencing is also about punishment, retribution and deterrence. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't make us any less human to expect that people pay for their actions. And to continuously discredit Mr. Boisvenu is appalling. I am certain that he is much more of an expert on the matter than you simply because he is an actual victim of crime.
GBS
il y a 9 ansFinalement, les dernières nouvelles quant à la façon de m. Boisvenu de se comporter au sénat me fait espérer qu'il agisse avec le même zèle dans l'utilisation des fonds publics que celui avec lequel il veut punir les criminels.
M. le sénateur, vous avez droit à vos opinions, et elles se défendent, mais de grâce faites-nous le plaisir de cesser vos faux-outrages qui semblent être votre seule façon de communiquer.
Zero the Hero
il y a 9 ansThe conservatives always try to present sentencing issues as somehow opposed to "victim's rights", as if this was a zero-sum game.
This is ridiculous and belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of criminal law in western countries where society voices its disapproval and metes out punishment, not the victim (or its family) who does not have the proper objectivity to do so.
In western society, eye for an eye and vigilante mobs went out a long time ago. The conservatives are trying to push us back to that era (the PM advocating for guns for protection in rural households).
Setting aside the ideology behind it, the saddest part of all this is the ignorance of the crime and recidivism rates in the USA in pointing to this country as a supposed example. The fact is that this latest attempt is contradicted by the experience of all western countries where different standards are used. Stated otherwise, this measure is counterproductive except in the brains of those who refuse to consider the clear, uncontradicted facts.
This is not my Canada.
Me Stéphane Lacoste
il y a 9 ansLe courageux DSG qui se cache pour débattre prétend que je ne connais rien des crimes et des victimes et que je n'aurais jamais été victime de crime. Que sait-il de moi? Son affirmation est fausse. Et de toute manière sans aucune pertinence.
J'ajouterais qu'il m'apparait contraire aux devoirs professionnels d'un avocat de qualifier ses confères comme suit: "mindless sympathizers of criminals that use the Charter to invalidate every attempt by the government to make society a safer place and to hold people accountable for their actions. "
Le Code de déontologie type de la Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada énonce d'ailleurs ce qui suit: "Lors d’une procédure contradictoire, l’avocat est tenu, envers le client, de soulever résolument tous les points, de faire valoir tous les arguments et de poser toutes les questions, si déplaisantes soient-elles, qui, selon le juriste, aideront la cause de son client. Il doit aussi s’efforcer d’utiliser tous les recours et moyens de défense permis par la loi dans l’intérêt de son client."
Le devoir premier des avocats est de faire respecter la constitution et la loi, de faire valoir tous les arguments qu'il faut au soutien de la position de son client, si cela apparait à DSG être "mindless", c'est qu'il n'a pas sa place parmi les avocats.
DSG
il y a 9 ansI’ve used this site too often to make stupid jokes so I must maintain my anonymity here. But since your comment was well thought out, I owe it to you to respond. When a society loses its ability to enact legislation or implement policies for what it considers to be for the good and well being of the nation, we do become mindless. Our intelligence, our emotions and our common sense has been subdued by the Charter. The application of the Charter has been so distorted by a Supreme Court that is trying to assume the role government, that humans are no longer able to decide what’s right. Me Hebert is saying that people’s desire for punishment and retribution violates the rights of the offender. Someone who isn’t blinded by the Charter would say, wait a minute, what about the rights of the victim who has had everything taken from them. And under the current trend where the courts have ruled that laws criminalizing prostitution and mercy killing are unconstitutional, you just know that the debate will be taken out of the hands of free thinking individuals. It will be decided by the courts in accordance with the Charter. So yes, we are mindless.
Zero the Hero
il y a 9 ansWatch Fox News much?
It is impossible to draft a law that does not require interpretation under any circumstances. This is especially true of Constitutional Law which is not meant to change/be amended often and over which the federal government does not have the final word and cannot act unilaterally.
In our society, it is the judiciary’s role to provide that interpretation. This is constant throughout western society. The only “problem” with the Supreme Court is that they do not lean towards your side (clearly to the right).
In interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is doing its job and owes no deference to the federal government contrary to what you are implying. Stated otherwise, if you really want to amend our supreme law, you will require a constitutional amendment and the conservatives do not have the support for this, so please stop with the judicial coup d’état nonsense parroting the American right.
And in this specific case, look at the horrendous state of the US criminal justice system with their “tough on crime” stance before pointing to this as the solution. While you are at it, look at the rates of violent crime/gun related crime in our neighbours to the south before heralding their position as a Canadian solution.
DSG
il y a 9 ansFirst of all, yes, I agree that the role of the Courts is to “interpret” the law. However it is not to “make” the law, which is what they have been doing lately. For example, whether our system should be directed towards punishing criminals or reforming them is up to the people to decide. You don’t like hard line conservatives, then don’t vote for them. Go vote for the NDP and have your neighborhoods overrun with criminals collecting welfare in order to reintegrate. But if the rest of the country elected the conservatives, accept that and don’t use the Charter as a means to have the courts lean towards what you think is right.
And the last time I checked, being a conservative is not a bad thing. Rudolph Giuliani managed to clean up New York with his staunch conservative stance towards criminals. Pre-Giuliani certain areas of the city were off limits to law abiding people.
Zero the Hero
il y a 9 ansActually, when it comes to Constitutional Law and administrative law, it IS the court's mandate to make law. That is why common law, which is supplemental in Canada in Constitutional law and administrative law is actually called "judge-made law". Quite clearly, in spite of what your posts imply, you don't know it all, even what a 1st year law student should.
That said, the courts did not decide "whether our system should be directed towards punishing criminals or reforming them", they interpret and apply the Constitution and and the Charter (i.e. also known as doing their job).
Tell me what parts of the Charter you would eliminate: you agree with cruel and unusual punishment? You don't believe in presumption of innocence? Equality regardless of gender or sexual orientation? The right to security? It's one thing to complain about the Charter, however go all the way and put some meat on your reasoning: what exactly would you remove? The answer, probably, is nothing, because it is the court's interpretation that you disagree with, not the underlying principles. Right? Something that the Conservatives can't touch. You may have noticed that they did not get 40% of the votes last election. That's why it's not easy to modify constitutions, because you shouldn't be allowed to cater to the flavour of the week.
As for your assessment of the NDP, instead of parroting Fox News talking points, look into what's going on in deep, dark Socialistan: Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc. Compare their crime and recidivism rates with that of our great neighbours to the south. Fun fact: with 5% of the world's population, they have 25% of the world's prisoners. USA is indeed number 1 in that regard. So they should necessarily have the lowest crime rate in keeping with your "logic", no? Actually, no, it's higher than most developed countries including the 3 listed above.
Just reread my comment, it is a little harsh in tone and I know that using cold, hard facts rather than rhetoric is unfair to you. Sorry. That said, educate yourself, then we'll continue this discussion.
DSG
il y a 9 ansI never argued for the elimination of the Charter. It’s it application to protect the rights of convicted criminals I have issue with. The Charter is there to protect the rights of people, including the accused. But once convicted it’s a whole different ball game. I would expect that a convicted criminal who losses his freedom also losses many of the protections of the Charter. Humans should decide, by using common sense and compassion for the victim and the victims' families, the amount of time that the criminal losses those protections. A piece of paper can’t make those determinations.
And Norway is a terrible example. Do you realize that under Norway’s revolving-door prison system, which is similar to Canada’s, the perpetrator of the 2011 attacks on the youth camp that left 69 people dead will be eligible for parole before he even turns 50. Is that what you want? Do you feel good knowing that while her victim’s families are still completely destroyed Karla Homolka is free and enjoying life with children of her own? Isn’t Paul Bernado eligible for parole soon?
As for the U.S’ high prison population, it’s a common fact that the more free a society is, the more likely it is that people will try to abuse those freedoms.
Zero the Hero
il y a 9 ans“I would expect that a convicted criminal who losses his freedom also losses many of the protections of the Charter. “
Why? Why should someone who was convicted of, for example, theft or drunk driving lose basic fundamental rights that Western society believes should be protected by the charter. Setting aside the fact that some of the rights were clearly intended to apply to these people (ex. cruel and unusual punishment) modern Western societies does not deprive individuals of their basic human rights, which is what the charters are supposed to reflect. So again, which protection of the charter should not apply to these individuals?
Of course, you will most likely reply that you do not want individuals convicted of theft or drunk driving to lose these rights, you want the murderers to lose their rights. Based on what exactly? And more specifically where do we draw the line? First-degree murder? Second degree murder? Manslaughter? And how do you justify the placement of that line? And where to get the legal authority to do so?
And if you take away basic human rights, you lose your moral authority to champion the same rights in other parts of the world. You may have noticed that the USA does not have the same moral authority since Guantanamo and Abu Graib.
“Humans should decide, by using common sense and compassion for the victim and the victims' families, the amount of time that the criminal losses those protections”
Sorry, but that is not the purpose of criminal law, it is not to avenge the victim, it is not about an eye for an eye. It hasn't been that way for a long time. (I will point out that you may want to consider visiting the Middle East if you're interested in this type of justice which still prevails over there.) Society will show its rebuke, will punish in light of objective standards and will most importantly try to rehabilitate. Statistics (again those inconvenient little facts), show that which you deem to be the "revolving door" system in Canada and other progressive countries is much more effective than harsher and longer prison sentences. Again, compare the rates of recidivism (seriously do the research).
Norway is actually a great example. The homicide rate in that country is SEVEN times lower than that of the "tough on crime" USA. There comes a point where you need to stop reciting the mantra and look at the facts which clearly show that your position is wrong, not as a matter of left versus right policy, but rather as a means of creating a safer, less crime-ridden society (which will no doubt agree should be our goal).
Do I want that terrorist out on the street? Of course not. Do I want the whole system changed for everyone convicted of murder because of such an egregious example? Of course not. As a result, do I want him to have the opportunity to be paroled? Absolutely. And I trust that those who are in charge of determining whether he should be paroled or not will apply reasonable objective standards in making this determination. I will not agree with every determination they make, however, I believe in the system and as such I have to accept these decisions (especially considering the fact that the outrage which may exist in regards to the situation is typically ignorant of the facts).
And that is where we differ fundamentally. You cannot make general policies based on the worst cases. You make general policies apply to all and trust that the system in place will not be granted parole in the worst cases.
Even if Bernardo is eligible for parole, I'll bet you a loony that he will not be granted parole. And if this is the case, the system works.
I am a firm believer in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I would request that instead of discussing what might happen, you actually provide a real example where the courts or the parole system made a grave mistake. I have read a lot of general statements on this supposed problem, however I've never seen someone point an actual situation that was so problematic. I am sure they exist, no system is perfect, but I prefer this imperfection to one where we take away the possibility to release someone who's been rehabilitated after 25 years. (By the way, Homolka’s situation is quite different, the charters have nothing to do with it, it was a deal that was made with her. As such, I do not see how her example could be used validly in this discussion).
As for your last paragraph, you are simply attempting to find a subjective excuse to an objectively quantifiable problem. Even if the USA was indeed the "freest" country on the planet, which is debatable in itself when comparing it to for example Canada and most of western Europe, it would still not explain why its murder and violent crime rate is a significant multiple of that which exists in these comparable countries. You can print the T-shirts, wear the giant foam hand and do your best unwitting Homer Simpson impersonation, the analysis does not match up to the facts.
In closing, as for the name that you gave me in the title to your comment, I will refer you to the long-standing precedents of Black Pot vs Black Kettle and Sticks and Stones vs Bones.
Zero the Hero
il y a 9 ans“I would expect that a convicted criminal who losses his freedom also losses many of the protections of the Charter. “
Why? Why should someone who was convicted of, for example, theft or drunk driving lose basic fundamental rights that Western society believes should be protected by the charter. Setting aside the fact that some of the rights were clearly intended to apply to these people (ex. cruel and unusual punishment) modern Western societies does not deprive individuals of their basic human rights, which is what the charters are supposed to reflect. So again, which protection of the charter should not apply to these individuals?
Of course, you will most likely reply that you do not want individuals convicted of theft or drunk driving to lose these rights, you want the murderers to lose their rights. Based on what exactly? And more specifically where do we draw the line? First-degree murder? Second degree murder? Manslaughter? And how do you justify the placement of that line? And where to get the legal authority to do so?
And if you take away basic human rights, you lose your moral authority to champion the same rights in other parts of the world. You may have noticed that the USA does not have the same moral authority since Guantanamo and Abu Graib.
“Humans should decide, by using common sense and compassion for the victim and the victims' families, the amount of time that the criminal losses those protections”
Sorry, but that is not the purpose of criminal law, it is not to avenge the victim, it is not about an eye for an eye. It hasn't been that way for a long time. (I will point out that you may want to consider visiting the Middle East if you're interested in this type of justice which still prevails over there.) Society will show its rebuke, will punish in light of objective standards and will most importantly try to rehabilitate. Statistics (again those inconvenient little facts), show that which you deem to be the "revolving door" system in Canada and other progressive countries is much more effective than harsher and longer prison sentences. Again, compare the rates of recidivism (seriously do the research).
Norway is actually a great example. The homicide rate in that country is SEVEN times lower than that of the "tough on crime" USA. There comes a point where you need to stop reciting the mantra and look at the facts which clearly show that your position is wrong, not as a matter of left versus right policy, but rather as a means of creating a safer, less crime-ridden society (which will no doubt agree should be our goal).
Do I want that terrorist out on the street? Of course not. Do I want the whole system changed for everyone convicted of murder because of such an egregious example? Of course not. As a result, do I want him to have the opportunity to be paroled? Absolutely. And I trust that those who are in charge of determining whether he should be paroled or not will apply reasonable objective standards in making this determination. I will not agree with every determination they make, however, I believe in the system and as such I have to accept these decisions (especially considering the fact that the outrage which may exist in regards to the situation is typically ignorant of the facts).
And that is where we differ fundamentally. You cannot make general policies based on the worst cases. You make general policies apply to all and trust that the system in place will not be granted parole in the worst cases.
Even if Bernardo is eligible for parole, I'll bet you a loony that he will not be granted parole. And if this is the case, the system works.
I am a firm believer in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I would request that instead of discussing what might happen, you actually provide a real example where the courts or the parole system made a grave mistake. I have read a lot of general statements on this supposed problem, however I've never seen someone point an actual situation that was so problematic. I am sure they exist, no system is perfect, but I prefer this imperfection to one where we take away the possibility to release someone who's been rehabilitated after 25 years. (By the way, Homolka’s situation is quite different, the charters have nothing to do with it, it was a deal that was made with her. As such, I do not see how her example could be used validly in this discussion).
As for your last paragraph, you are simply attempting to find a subjective excuse to an objectively quantifiable problem. Even if the USA was indeed the "freest" country on the planet, which is debatable in itself when comparing it to for example Canada and most of western Europe, it would still not explain why its murder and violent crime rate is a significant multiple of that which exists in these comparable countries. You can print the T-shirts, wear the giant foam hand and do your best unwitting Homer Simpson impersonation, the analysis does not match up to the facts.
In closing, as for the name that you gave me in the title to your comment, I will refer you to the long-standing precedents of Black Pot vs Black Kettle and Sticks and Stones vs Bones.
DSG
il y a 9 ansYou make interesting and well founded arguments. But I disagree.