Date of Conferral

2021

Degree

Ph.D.

School

Criminal Justice

Advisor

Tony Gaskew

Abstract

In the post-9/11 world, Canada has struggled with developing a sentencing regime that effectively punishes and deters defined terrorist activity such as the attack on the Canadian Parliament, the Danforth shootings, the rise of Khalistani and Islamic terrorism, and the Toronto Van Attack. Broadly speaking, the Canadian public still supports capital punishment, but it is unclear whether Canadian prosecutors perceive and view the issue in the same light in their professional and legal capacity. Canadian prosecutors are tasked with seeking sentences that meet criminal justice principles, including the principle of deterrence. Their views on what punishments are just and effective are important, as they have significant and broad discretion in asking the courts to impose sentences. Thus, while Clarence Darrow argued that “We have heard talk of justice. Is there anybody who knows what justice is? No one on earth can measure out justice.” The criminal justice system functions within the legal fiction that prosecutors can make decisions on what justice can and should be. This The present study has used a grounded theory design by collecting data from Canadian prosecutors on their views about capital punishment as it relates to defined terrorist activity and their roles concerning administering justice on behalf of the public. A theme emerging from the interviews was that the general deterrence principle of sentencing was either false or too hard to quantify to make it a meaningful factor in sentencing. This study may contribute to a positive social change by helping develop a theory about how Canadian prosecutors view the role of punishment, their role as prosecutors in the criminal justice system, and how they view the effectiveness of deterrence as it relates to defined terrorist activity and capital punishment.

Download

Share

 
COinS