R V. Smith: Cruel And Unusual Punishment In Canada

The criminal case of R v. Smith (Edward Dewey) had a significant impact on Canadian law for narcotics punishments, as well as redefined the concept of crueal and unusual punishment. Throughout the course of this case, the base concept of cruel and unusual punishment was re-defined and put into effect. Since cruel and unusual punishment is a changing concept as time goes on, the redefinition of it was entirely necessary. As for the Canadian citizens that this has affected, many non-violent people who are affiliated with drug trafficking, either voluntary or non-voluntary, will have reasonable punishments instead of grossly disproportionate ones. The case of R v Smith in 1987 had a meaningful influence on Canadian law pertaining to narcotics

sentences.
Through the case of R v Smith the definition of cruel and unusual punishment was defined in three different parts.

Under section 12 of the charter of rights and freedoms, everyone has the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Since the concept of cruel and unusual punishment is considered a “Compendious expression of a norm” (Canadian Legal Information Institute) it must be redefined as often as the norm of that specific time is redefined. In this case the concept of cruel and unusual punishment was defined in three separate parts. The first is “The punishment is of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity” (Canadian Legal Information Institute). This outlines the necessity that the punishment should be within a reasonable duration as to not make the general public outraged by it. The punishment shouldn’t degrade human dignity either. Article 1 in the Universal Declaration of Humans rights states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” (United Nations). This article directly protects part one of the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. The second part of the new definition is that “The punishment goes beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives” (Canadian Legal Information Institute). This second part confirms that the punishment achieves the social

aim, which is to reform the criminal into being an active part of society again. Likewise, possible alternative such as community service, fines and other punishments must be considered. Imprisoning drug traffickers is supposed to reduce the violent and property crime. The reason that this part was added was because the Supreme Court of Canada believed that every punishment must be made in order to achieve something for the greater good. In this case, they decided in order to properly reform this specific drug trafficker and reduce the crime he will further commit; an eight-year sentence is excessive and unnecessary in order to achieve that. The third and last part of the definition is “The punishment is arbitrarily imposed in the sense that it is not applied on a rational basis in accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards” (Canadian Legal Information Institute). This final segment protects criminals against punishment arbitrarily or randomly forced by the law that cannot be justified on a sensible basis. Also, the punishment must be able to be approved as a standard punishment on the same rational basis. In other words, the punishment must be one that aims to achieve a social aim but at the same time is standard among the category of crime. In brief, the case of R v Smith directly altered the use of section 12 of the charter and redefined cruel and unusual punishment as seen in sections 12.
The punishment for criminals affiliated with drug traffickers that are not majorly or violently involved has been reasonably changed by this case.

A study done within the U.S. by the American Civil Liberties Union was conducted in order to show the difference in sentences for trafficking criminals in 2005. The study indicated that the majority of the lowest level cocaine and crack trafficking defendants received the same minimum mandatory sentences as the highest level traffickers. These minimum sentences were either 5 or 10 ten-year prison sentences. Also, district court judge of Iowa, Judge Mark Bennett, stated that he never would have though that he “would have sent 1,092 of my fellow citizens to federal prison for mandatory minimum sentences ranging from sixty months to life without the possibility of release. The majority of these women, men and young adults are nonviolent drug addicts.” (Stamm). He went on to say that he could count the kingpins he incarcerated out of the 1,092 criminals on one hand. This can be easily carried over to Canadian federal law where the majority of drug offenders are small time minor criminals. However, the federals aim is to reprimand the major drug

traffickers.
The changes of this specific case are easy to see in Canadian federal drug law today. Before the case of R v Smith, drug sentencing was almost universal whereas the amount of drugs did not significantly change the duration of the sentence. The duration of the sentence was essentially non-negotiable and there was a seven-year minimum mandatory sentence. After this case, a massive range of sentences and categories for criminals was introduced. Every province in Canada now has their own sentencing structure and procedure. The difference that the case of R v Smith made and the influence that it had on these new structures and procedures is quite significant. Now, there is no minimum mandatory sentence, so the punishment is negotiable. Also, none of the punishments range beyond four years for small time dealers. This is due to the fact that anything more than a four-year sentence would undoubtedly be deemed to violate the new principles of section 12 of the charter. Similarly, the sentence for major drug traffickers has been increased considerably. In most provinces it is a sentence of 8 to 12 years imprisonment for high-level traffickers. The Manitoban government defined it the most accurately. They split drug traffickers into 4 categories: low (street dealer), low mid (mere courier), mid (more than mere courier of large quantities) and high (multi-kilogram trafficker). Each one of these categories has different ranges of sentences depending on the severity of the trafficking crime. The case of R v Smith in 1987 noticeably changed the sentences for drug traffickers in Canada.
In 1987, the case of R v Smith (Edward Dewey) changed Canadian law in terms of sentences for drug traffickers and re-defined the concept of cruel and unusual punishment. The government of Canada reviewed section 12 of the charter of rights and freedoms after this case; they decided to redefine the concept of cruel and unusual punishment in three separate principles. A minimum mandatory sentence for drug traffickers was also abolished; instead the sentence reflected how involved a suspect was in terms of the drug operation. When involved with drugs or drug affiliated crimes, the changes that this case has made is obvious.