Talk:R v Gladue

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2018 and 28 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrodyKRS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

needs clarification
On September 16, 1995 Jamie Tanis Gladue was drinking and celebrating her 19th birthday with some friends. She suspected that the victim, her boyfriend, was having an affair with the offender's (GLADUE'S) older sister, Tara. Gladue made specific threats that "he was going to get it." (WHO DID SHE MAKE THIS REMARK TO?) Following a confrontation, the victim (BF) uttered many insults at the offender (GLADUE), at which point the offender (GLADUE) stabbed the victim (HER BF) in the chest. She (GLADUE) was subsequently charged with second degree murder and ultimately convicted of manslaughter. At her sentencing hearing the judge took into account many aggravating factors including the fact that the offender was not afraid of the victim. The court also took into account several mitigating factors such as her youth, her status as a mother and the absence of any serious criminal history. She was sentenced to three years imprisonment. At her trial and at the Court of Appeal for British Columbia the court upheld the sentence, finding that s. 718.2(e) did not apply to off-reserve Aboriginals.

Here is a much more detailed and clear description of the case:

The accused, an aboriginal woman, pled guilty to manslaughter for the killing of her common law husband and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. On the night of the incident, the accused was celebrating her 19th birthday and drank beer with some friends and family members, including the victim. She suspected the victim was having an affair with her older sister and, when her sister left the party, followed by the victim, the accused told her friend, "He's going to get it. He's really going to get it this time". She later found the victim and her sister coming down the stairs together in her sister's home. She believed that they had been engaged in sexual activity. When the accused and the victim returned to their townhouse, they started to quarrel. During the argument, the accused confronted the victim with his infidelity and he told her that she was fat and ugly and not as good as the others. A few minutes later, the victim fled their home. The accused ran toward him with a large knife and stabbed him in the chest. When returning to her home, she was heard saying "I got you, you fucking bastard". There was also evidence indicating that she had stabbed the victim on the arm before he left the townhouse. At the time of the stabbing, the accused had a blood-alcohol content of between 155 and 165 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/tonymartens/public_html/Handout%20R.htm

This article is quite confusing - really needs work.
The reason I find this confusing is the following:

The introduction paragraph indicates that R v Gladue is about ensuring that sentencing has to take into account the 'special' circumstances of being an indigenous [Aboriginal] person, even including the personal history of the individual being sentenced.

The Background indicates that the Judge did just that, including considering the history of no previous violence. The Judge didn't consider that the defendents mother being killed in a car crash had bearing upon the case (and, frankly I wouldn't consider that either), and other unspecified traumatic past. Then goes on to state that the Judge "held that s. 718.2(e)[2] did not apply to Indigenous people who were off-reserve". So, clearly the Judge did make some consideration about the circumstances of the accused, even if his decision about being off reservation was later held to be incorrect (apparently). Finally it is stated that " The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the sentence.[3]"

Then the Reasons of the Court section indicates that that decision was somehow invalidated - or at least, that's how it reads to me. Yet, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision ??

Finally, the Chanllenges section first sentence makes a statement of fact, which to my mind is actually not a fact, rather an opinion (i.e. the challenging opinion).

So, I am left wondering what the actual (final) sentence was. I also have to wonder how much harsher the sentence would have been had the Gladue not been indigenous. IOW, are there similar cases of stabbing during a domestic dispute where a non-indigenous person was sentenced lighter or heavier ?

Basically, the article leaves me more confused about this issue than I was when I started reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmigersSmigers (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Made some changes; please see it if responds to your concerns? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)