Punishing the most heinous crimes

I n reviewing the application, the Minister shall assess whether the fundamental purpose and the objectives of sentencing have been met by the portion of the sentence that the offender has served, taking into account the following criteria:. [...] The reference to a traditional approach to granting clemency alludes to the period prior to the creation of the independent PBC in 1959 where the federal Cabinet, then simply the Minister of Justice, effectively made decisions on release since 1899 (Parole Board of Canada 2009b). [...] Proportionality is a central concept in sentencing law, requiring that the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. [...] In Case of Vinters and Others v. The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights found that “whole-life sentences” with a dedicated review mechanism may satisfy the requirements of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”11 The C [...] This language is very similar to that used in the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code, which state: “any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint” (s.