Section Twelve of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Charter and of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada. The section has generated some case law, including the essential case R. v. Smith (1987), in which it was partially defined, and R. v. Latimer (2001), a famous case in which Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer murdered his disabled daughter and protested his long sentence as cruel and unusual. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights which forms part of the Constitution Act, 1982, added to the Constitution of Canada in 1982. ... Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter that confirms that the rights listed in the document are guaranteed. ... Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees what are called the fundamental freedoms for which there are four enumerated types. ... 3. ... Section Five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Constitution of Canada, and the last of three democratic rights in the Charter. ... The right to live and work anywhere in Canada. ... Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects an individuals autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government. ... Section 8 - SEARCH OR SEIZURE. 8. ... 10. ... crap ... Section Thirteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter which specifies rights regarding self incrimination. ... Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms consist of the equality rights guarantee of the Charter against all forms of discrimination perpetrated by the government with the exception of ameliorative programs (affirmative action). ... (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have the equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliamnet and government of Canada. ... Section Sixteen One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the newest section of the Charter. ... (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates or other proceedings of Parliament. ... Section Twenty-two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of several sections of the Charter relating to the official languages of Canada. ... Section Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter that constitutionally guarantees minority language educational rights to French-speaking communities outside Quebec, and, to a lesser extent, English-speaking minorities in Quebec. ... Enforcement Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms 24. ... Section Twenty-five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the first section under the heading General in the Canadian constitutions Charter, and like other sections within the General sphere, it aids in the interpretation of rights elsewhere in the Charter. ... Section Twenty-six of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like other provisions within the section 25 to 31 bloc, provides a guide in interpreting how the Charter should affect Canadian society. ... Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that, as part of a range of provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, helps determine how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the... Section Twenty-eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Canadian constitutions bill of rights. ... Section Thirty of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that, like other provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, provides a guide as to how Charter rights should be interpreted and applied by Canadian courts. ... Section Thirty-one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Constitution of Canada, which clarifies that the Charter does not increase the powers of either the federal government or the legislatures of the provinces of Canada. ... Section Thirty-two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerns the application and scope of the Charter. ... Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (known as la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés in French) is part of the Constitution of Canada. ... The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights which forms part of the Constitution Act, 1982, added to the Constitution of Canada in 1982. ... The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law in Canada. ... The statement that the government shall not inflict cruel and unusual punishment for crimes is found in the English Bill of Rights signed in 1689 by William of Orange and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England following the Glorious Revolution of 1688. ... 1987 (MCMLXXXVII) is a common year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar. ... 2001: A Space Odyssey. ... Motto: Multis E Gentibus Vires (From many peoples, strength) Other Canadian provinces and territories Capital Regina Largest city Saskatoon Lieutenant-Governor Lynda M. Haverstock Premier Lorne Calvert (NDP) Area 651,036 km² (7th) • Land 591,670 km² • Water 59,366 km² (9. ... Robert Latimer is a Canadian farmer sentenced to 10 years in prison for the murder of his daughter, Tracy, which occurred on October 24, 1993. ...

The section states:

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Definition

R. v. Smith was the first case in which section 12 was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court, however, could and did follow previous interpetations of cruel and unusual punishments in pre-Charter case law, namely Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen (1977). Cruel and unusual punishment was thus defined as punishment "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency" or "grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate." Justice Lamer, writing for the Court in R. v. Smith, went on to provide some guides as to how to measure proportionality, listing as special considerations the seriousness of the crime committed by the individual, the "personal characteristics" of the individual, and the various types of punishments available that could effectively "punish, rehabilitate or deter this particular offender or to protect the public from this particular offender." The Supreme Court Building in Ottawa The Supreme Court of Canada (French: Cour suprême du Canada) is Canadas highest court and is located in the capital city of Ottawa. ... For the album by Ash, see 1977 (album). ... The Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, PC , CC , CD , LL.D , D.U., (born July 8, 1933 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada). ...

Later, the Court would add in R. v. Goltz (1991) and R. v. Morrisey (2000) that how the individual would be impacted by the punishment in practice, the objectives of the punishment, whether or not other kinds of punishments could be used instead, and how other types of criminals are punished could be relevant to a section 12 test. Still, the test is not strict but rather deferential to the government. In Steele v. Mountain Institution (1990), Justice Cory wrote for the Court that a judicial discovery of a cruel and unusual punishment should be "rare and unique". The Parliament of Canada's ability to judge the appropriateness of various punishments is not absolute, but courts are generally encouraged to exercise restraint in correcting Parliament. 1991 (MCMXCI) is a common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar. ... This article is about the year 2000. ... This article is about the year. ... The Paliament of Canada (French: Parlement du Canada) is Canadas legislative branch, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario. ...

Prison sentences

If longer than necessary, to a degree that can be considered "grossly disproportionate," certain prison senteces can be considered cruel and unusual and therefore unconstitional under section 12. In R. v. Smith itself, the prison sentence of an alleged cocaine dealer was deemed so long as to be cruel and unusual under the Charter. While Parliament had the power to make laws in which a certain crime could result in a minimum length of time that must be served in prison, this could be unconstitutional if the law prescribes that same minimum length of time for a type of crime that "covers many substances of varying degrees of danger." Specifically, the law did not consider how much cocaine was involved and why the rights claimant was acquiring it. This article is about the drug Cocaine. ...

The Court again considered whether a minimum prison sentence perceived as lengthy would be cruel and unusual in the case R. v. Latimer. Latimer, who had murdered his disabled daughter, argued the 10 years that he would definitely serve (he could be in prison for longer if denied parole) was so long as to be cruel and unusual. The basis of this argument was that the murder was committed as a type of mercy killing. The Court in this case decided the sentence was not unconstitutional, noting the crime "resulted in the most serious of all possible consequences, namely, the death of the victim." While Latimer had been convicted of second as opposed to first-degree murder, the Court added that "second degree murder is an offence accompanied by an extremely high degree of criminal culpability." In this section 12 case, the principle of mens rea was considered vital. Parole can have different meanings depending on the context. ... The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...

Execution

In the 2001 extradition case United States v. Burns, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether execution would classify in Canadian law as a cruel and unusual punishment and therefore a direct violation of section 12. They did, however, state that execution certainly "engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment," noting its impossibily to correct (in cases of wrongful conviction) and its perceived "arbitrary" nature, as well as the skepticisms that it really would decrease crime rates. The Court also took into consideration that Parliament had already abolished the death penalty within Canada itself. Extradition is a formal process by which a criminal suspect held by one government is handed over to another government for trial or, if the suspect has already been tried and found guilty, to serve his or her sentence. ... Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name. ...