An article from globeandmail.com

Colin Feasby (cfeasby@osler.com) thought you would be interested in this article from http://www.globeandmail.com

The Supreme Court of Canada decided by a 5-4 majority this morning that convicts have the right to vote under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The reasons should be available on-line within 24 hours.

Get today's news delivered to your in-box. Sign up for our daily News Update!
http://www.globeandmail.com/newsletter/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An article from www.globeandmail.com, Thursday, October 31, 2002

Supreme Court rules inmates can vote

By KIRK MAKIN
Globe and Mail Update

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted convicts in penitentiaries the right to vote.

In a 5-4 decision on Thursday, the court said a federal law that punishes prisoners for their misconduct in society is wrongheaded and more likely to undermine their respect for democracy than to enhance it.

"The legitimacy of the law and the obligation to obey the law flow directly from the right of every citizen to vote," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the majority. "The idea that certain classes of people are not morally fit or morally worthy
to vote and to participate in the law-making process is ancient and obsolete."

The ruling was a victory for Richard Sauve, convicted of first-degree murder almost 25 years ago in the shooting of a biker in Port Hope, Ont. Mr. Sauve was joined by several other inmates and inmate committees in his constitutional challenge.

Punishment must serve a valid criminal-law purpose and must not be arbitrary, the majority said. Yet, the government failed to produced "any credible" theory" to justify using such an essential right as a method of punishment, they said.

In reasons that bristled with indignation, Chief Justice McLachlin said vague philosophical musings do not begin to form a valid basis for denying citizens their right to vote.

"The government cannot use lofty objectives to shield legislation from Charter scrutiny. As to a legitimate penal purpose, neither the record nor common sense supports the claim that disenfranchisement deters crime or rehabilitates criminals."

She referred to the government's rationale as "a novel theory" that would permit elected representatives to exclude citizens who have a right to equal participation in a democracy.

"To deny prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility," the majority said. "This history of democracy is the history of progressive enfranchisement. The universal franchise has bec
ome, at this point in time, an essential part of democracy."

The other majority judges were Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie, Madam Justice Louise Arbour and Mr. Justice Louis LeBel.

Writing for the dissenting side, Mr. Justice Charles Gonthier said the government was not in a position to offer "scientific" proof of a philosophical belief such as the one that underlies denying prisoners the right to vote.

He said disenfranchisement is a valid tool for Parliament to use in its efforts to promote civic responsibility.

Like Chief Justice McLachlin, Judge Gonthier invoked "common sense" to back up his argument that removing the vote from offenders enhances the general objectives of penal sanctions.

"The disenfranchisement of serious criminal offenders serves to deliver a message to both the community and the offenders themselves that serious criminal activity will not be tolerated by the community," the dissenting judges said.

Visit www.globeandmail.com for breaking news and financial tools.

News: http://www.globeandmail.com
Mutual Funds: http://www.globefund.com
Stocks: http://www.globeinvestor.com
Careers: http://www.globecareers.com
ROBTv: http://www.robtv.com
ROB Magazine: http://www.robmagazine.com
Technology: http://www.globetechnology.com
Wheels: http://www.globemegawheels.com
Books: http://www.globebooks.com