There is a scene in an episode of the Simpsons that I have always thought does a good job of explaining the problems we have with the “justice system.” Shortly after Bart has been caught spraying graffiti on the school, his parents, Homer and Marge, are shown walking into the school to meet with the principal. This is the exchange:
MARGE: He’s a good boy now, and he’s getting better, and sometimes even the best sheep stray from the flock and need to be hugged extra hard.
HOMER: That’s exactly the kind of crapola that’s lousing him up.
This exchange came to mind again earlier this week when I came across this National Post article:
The main point is that “Indigenous women and girls are killed at rates six times higher than non-Indigenous women — yet the perpetrators are frequently convicted of lesser offences than those guilty in the deaths of non-Indigenous victims.”
Some related facts:
46% of cases where the victim was indigenous end in a finding of manslaughter versus 24% of cases involving non-indigenous victims.
Only 25% of those accused in the deaths of Indigenous women faced charges of first-degree murder, while in cases with non-Indigenous female victims, first-degree murder charges were laid 37% of the time.
16% of killings or suspicious deaths of Indigenous women in the last seven years are unsolved, a rate four percentage points higher than for non-Indigenous cases.
Indigenous people are over-represented in the Canadian justice system compared to their share of the population, as both victims and accused.
Conclusion…
Do you really need me to tell you?
Fine.
It’s racism.
“When you look systemically … [Indigenous women’s] lives and their health and their safety are not valued as highly.” - Michael Spratt, an Ottawa criminal defense lawyer for 20 years.
Case closed!
Move along.
Nothing to see here!
Oh, hell, let’s dig a little deeper anyway. I’m sure more data will just support the racism argument.
Thanks, “Marge”
“Ann Maje Raider, executive director of the Liard Aboriginal Women’s Society in the Yukon, says a perception of greater leniency in the justice system around the deaths of Indigenous women is making the problem worse. (Perpetrators) know they’re not going to get anything, and the reason is that the justice institution has failed us.”
Outrageous!
How could this possibly be the case?
Is there any data in the article that could shine some light on this?
97% of female Indigenous victims whose outcomes were known were killed by someone they knew, a rate seven percentage points higher than for non-Indigenous cases.
So what? Knowing the accused should have zero impact on sentencing, right?
Well, there is one “minor” point left out of the article entirely:
Between 2009 and 2021, most solved homicides of Indigenous women and girls involved an accused person who was also Indigenous. About 86% of cases where there was an identified accused involved an Indigenous person as the alleged perpetrator.
Once again, you might think, “so what? It’s not like we’re letting indigenous offenders or easy, right?”
Right?
Uh… except we are.
Gladue principles are a set of sentencing guidelines in Canadian criminal law that require judges to consider the unique systemic and background circumstances of Indigenous offenders when determining an appropriate sentence. They stem directly from section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which states:
all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
This provision was added in 1996 to help address the severe over-representation of Indigenous people in Canada’s prisons—a problem the Supreme Court has repeatedly described as a crisis resulting from colonialism, systemic discrimination, and intergenerational trauma.
This also explains why:
Of the accused in Indigenous cases whose previous history was available to reporters, 94% had red flags in their past, such as arrests and convictions, contact with child services, or significant mental health issues.
Perpetrators of the murders of indigenous women are getting lighter sentences because most of them are indigenous. Before you say “wait, this certainly can’t apply to violent crimes,” it does:
In R. v. Ipeelee (2012), the Supreme Court reaffirmed and strengthened the Gladue principles, addressing inconsistent or limited application in lower courts. Important points include:
Gladue analysis must be applied in every case involving an Indigenous offender—no exceptions for serious or violent crimes.
There is no requirement to prove a direct causal link (nexus) between the offender’s background factors and the specific offence; the connection is often complex and systemic.
Judges play a front-line role in addressing Indigenous over-incarceration.
In short, Canada is giving lighter sentences to indigenous criminals because of “systematic racism.” Since at least 86% of homicides of Indigenous women and girls are committed by indigenous men, racism might not be (read: isn’t) the reason “perpetrators are frequently convicted of lesser offences than those guilty in the deaths of non-Indigenous victims.”
Criminals aren’t getting light sentences because the victims are indigenous; they’re getting light sentences because they themselves are indigenous.
This is the entirely predictable outcome of progressive approaches to crime:
Falsely blame racism for a problem.
Attempt to solve racism.
Create a new problem.
“Rinse and repeat.”
If you want indigenous victims of murder to receive “justice” send the perpetrators of the crimes to jail. If you want there to be less indigenous people in jail, tell them to stop committing crimes.
The problem with the “Marge approach” to justice is that it invariably finds a way to excuse the actions of criminals. There’s always some “systematic” reason why a criminal is not responsible for their actions and the choices they make. The “Marge approach” to law and order might best be summed up like this:
Marge: You broke the law?
Accused: Ya
Marge: Well, I’m sure there’s a reason why it’s not your fault so we should go easy on you.
The problem is that you’ve created a system in which victims do not receive justice.
If we want to fix the problem, we need to go back to the “Homer” approach:
Homer: You broke the law?
Accused: Ya
Homer: You’re going to jail. For a long time.
Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.
As you may have picked up from this article, he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.
If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to us.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
 | A guest post by
|
Solid breakdown of how Gladue principles unintentionally undermine justice for indigenous victims. The data showing 86% of perpetrators being indigenous while getting reduced sentences flips the usual narrative on its head. I ran into this same logic gap when looking at recidivism studies where policy aimed at one problem created downstream issues no one anticipated. The Simpsons refrence is spot on too, the whole "Marge vs Homer" framing captures how sypmathetic policy can backfire against the people it's meant to protect.
American courts are notorious for releasing dangerous people back out into the public.
I think if you checked, you'd find that most violent crimes are committed by people who were supposed to still be in prison.