The Subjective/Objective Debate Explained

Over the past year, I have detected a theme in the criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada: is the criminal law objectively or subjectively based? This is a crucial yet traditional argument touching upon almost every aspect of a criminal charge, including the mental element or mens rea for a crime and criminal law defences. In other words, this issue or debate, impacts all areas of substantive criminal law and therefore is seminal to our understanding of the law and the appropriate and fair application of the law.

As punishment is the ultimate outcome of a finding of guilt in a criminal case, the standard of assessing the accused’s behaviour is of vital importance. Indeed, it is at the core of the presumption of innocence as it provides the tools by which a trier of fact, be it judge or jury, decides whether the prosecutor has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

As discussed in a previous posting, the standard of assessment can make all the difference between a finding of guilt and a finding of innocence. The subjective standard requires the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this accused intended his or her actions while the objective standard requires the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a reasonable person would have not acted as the accused did in the circumstances of the case. By using a standard of reasonableness as opposed to the particular accused’s awareness, the objective liability is a lower standard and therefore easier for the prosecutor to prove. Yet, objective liability crimes, such as manslaughter, carry the maximum sentence of punishment of life imprisonment. The objective standard is harsh and can result in a conviction of a person, who due to personal frailties and inabilities, could never come up to the standard of a reasonable person. These individuals may be viewed as morally innocent as they do not have an intention to commit the prohibited act. In criminal law we justify this conviction by applying the principle of the utilitarian concept of the “greater good,” which emphasizes the “commonweal” and the importance of preventing societal harm. However by doing so, we ignore the societal interest in preventing the punishment of the morally innocent or those who are, to put it bluntly, “substandard” individuals.

The issue of subjective/objective mens rea came to the foreground after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented. Section 7 of the Charter requires that no one is to face a loss of liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Harkening back to the presumption of innocence, section 7 seemed to require a conviction based on subjective mens rea or individual awareness of the risk of his or her conduct. In a series of cases in the late 1980s and the 1990s, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, yet disagreed. The Court agreed certain traditional crimes, such as murder and theft, which attracted great social stigma upon conviction (one is branded as a murderer or a thief), required subjective liability. However, other crimes, particularly those requiring a duty of care such as in the licensed activities of driving, need only require objective liability.

Although, the court arrived at a “modified” objective standard in a split decision in Hundal, the end result was far from a true modification. Unlike Justice Lamer’s dissent position, which called for an allowance for personal characteristics in the objective assessment, the majority preferred to “soften” the harshness of the objective standard by requiring the trier of fact to determine liability “contextually” in the circumstances of the particular facts of the case. Instead of taking heed to the specifics of the individual, the person whose liberty interests were at issue, the court preferred to focus on a construct of reality as revealed by the facts of the case. Justice Lamer’s stance, interestingly and importantly for my analysis, was supported by the now Chief Justice McLachlin.   At the end of the 1990s, it was clear that not only was the objective standard here to stay, it had reached constitutional status. Thus, the standardization of crime came into being.

This penchant for objectiveness also began to permeate the defences available to the accused. Certainly, the assessment of defences on a reasonable or objective standard was not new as seen in the assessment of the common law defences of justifications (self-defence) and excuses (duress and necessity). However, the objective assessment was always tempered with a subjective inquiry to ensure that this accused’s actions in face of a subjectively perceived threat were taken into account. However, I would argue that with the passing of the new defence of the person section in the Criminal Code, the objective requirement is forefront and again, the subjective assessment is left to a factual analysis, devoid of any personal viewpoints. See a previous blog I have done on this very issue. As argued by George Fletcher in an essay on the defences, The Individualization of Excusing Conditions, by turning the focus away from the accused, we are imposing an artificiality into the criminal law process wherein we sacrifice the individual in favour of the rule of law. Thus, we forget that defences, such as excuses, are “an expression of compassion for one of our kind caught in a maelstrom of circumstance.”

In the next posting, I will review the past year of SCC cases on the objective/subjective debate to determine if the Supreme Court of Canada has gone too far into the objective territory.

Criminal Law and the Science of Prediction

It was a devastating earthquake on many levels: loss of life as over three hundred people died, loss of property as buildings crumbled, and loss of history as an ancient medieval fortress town came tumbling down. All it took was seconds as the earth shook on April 6,2009 in the tiny hilltop village of L’Aquila, Italy. Yet, behind the disaster were years of earthquake readiness and scientific predictions. Behind the devastation was months of tremors; warning signs that something was not quite right. Yet, disasters happen and this one certainly did.

But was there someone to blame? The government thought so when they charged six scientists and one government official with manslaughter. Finally, after a lengthy trial, on October 22, 2012, Judge Marco Billi found them guilty of manslaughter and sentenced them to six years imprisonment. Those convicted included the head of the Serious Risks Commission, the Director of the National Earthquake Centre, and a physicist. The prosecutor built a case of mismanagement, inaccuracy, and the withholding of crucial information, which could have saved lives. The defence emphasized the unpredictability of earthquake prediction and the “chill effect” such a verdict would bring. Indeed after the verdict, a number of Italian scientists quit government posts as scientists across the globe warned of the harmful effects the verdict would have on future research efforts.

There are clearly two sides to the issue but, when looked at more closely, the two sides are not in opposition. The prosecutor is correct in characterizing erroneous or even untimely information as an act or omission, which can and should ground a criminal charge. In Canada, manslaughter requires an underlying unlawful act, which can be viewed as objectively dangerous in nature, which then causes the death of a human being.  Here, the allegation the scientists knowingly mislead the people of L’Aquila, may be a basis for such a manslaughter charge.

However, a mere failure to accurately predict a major disaster is not, in itself, a basis for a manslaughter charge. If it were, the defence’s concern that such prosecution would curtail scientific innovation would be correct. Such a prosecution would be the antithesis of the scientific method. A scientific hypothesis must be first tested before accepted. If the experiment does not produce the results expected, then the hypothesis is modified: such trial and error is needed to produce a final result. Without the ability to make mistakes with impunity, many medical treatments would not be developed.

There is also the difficulty with predictions, whether under the rubric of science or not as seen by the successes and failures of polls and the pollsters who interpret them. As Nate Silver, predictor extraordinaire, explains in his new book "The Signal and the Noise," although some outcomes are predictable if we crunch enough numbers and gather enough data, some, like earthquake prediction, is not possible at this time. How then can we expect a standard of behaviour in an area that is impossibly non-standard?

There is also, a “half-way” opinion between the two: that certain failures or breaches of rules should stay in the regulatory arena and sanctioning should be through the controlling regulatory scheme as opposed to the criminal law.

All of the above is, of course based, on the facts and the level of liability would be commensurate with those facts. In the Italian case, if the findings of the trial Judge were as submitted by the prosecutor, then not unlike the Walkerton, Ontario tainted water incident, the criminal law is properly engaged. However this case is viewed the decision has caused much debate. To sample the various viewpoints, read this, this, this, and this. To read more about public disasters that attract the intervention of criminal law, please read my posting from January 15, 2012 on Public Disasters and the Criminal Law and my posting from February 25, 2012 entitled Safety First: Laboratory Safety and the Criminal Code.

Let's Talk About: The Importance of Asking "Why" When Discussing Criminal Law

In teaching criminal law, I like the class to think about why certain behaviour is deemed criminal and why other behaviour is acceptable. In learning, it is far too easy to memorize principles without a true understanding of why the principle is given and the reason behind it. The importance of why can lead to a deeper and better understanding of a concept, which can lead one to question the ideas contained therein and can ultimately lead to innovative and unique perspectives on a familiar issue.

 For some forms of behaviour we can quickly understand why the underlying acts are contrary to the law. Murder, theft, and assault are such examples. These are all acts, which we all agree are worthy of sanction. These crimes, which we call true crimes, lies at the essence of what we as a society believe is wrongful and immoral conduct. Not every immoral act is a crime, but in the case of true crimes, morality and legality are both present as philosophy and jurisprudence connect.

However, it is when law and morality do not connect and do not occur contemporaneously that we may be uncertain or unable to agree to the underlying reason or the why such behaviour is prohibited. Then, we may turn to our courts and our judges to decide whether the behaviour does in fact deserve sanctioning. Such an example is the abortion laws, which made abortion and the concomitant acts illegal and the judge-made law, through the interpretation of our Charter, which turned this prohibited conduct into acceptable behaviour.

Or we may question the efficacy of making the behavior contrary to the law and the subsequent public pressure may lead to the government changing the law to make the conduct acceptable and therefore not sanctionable. This ability of public opinion to change the law can be most clearly seen in the consumption of alcohol and the end of Prohibition or Temperance. Thus, our criminal law shifts and changes as our fundamental values as a society change and grow.

It is this flexible concept of the law, which makes learning the law so refreshing and exciting. It is the "why" which makes law relevant to us all and makes us mindful of the transformative effect law can have on a society.

Thirty Day Review

Under s. 525 of the Criminal Code, there is provision for an automatic bail review for those accused who have been detained in custody pending trial. If the matter is a more serious indictable offence, the review occurs within ninety days. If it is a less serious summary conviction matter, the review is within thirty days.

This review acts as a procedural safeguard by keeping track of those in custody. It is also an important aspect of the presumption of innocence as the judge determines whether the further restriction of liberty of those merely accused of a crime is justified. Additionally, the review reinforces the Charter right to reasonable bail.

Borrowing the nomenclature of the Criminal Code, but not the analogy, this is ideablawg's thirty day review. Ideablawg has been in operation since October 10 and the weekend postings will offer updates on the issues discussed. As part of this thirty day review, I invite you to send me an email with your favourite post or even with ideas for future posts. As the creative thinker Steven Johnson said:

We are often better served by connecting ideas than we are by protecting them... Environments that build walls around good ideas tend to be less innovative in the long run than more open-ended environments. Good ideas may not want to be free, but they want to connect, fuse, and recombine... They want to complete each other as much as they want to compete.

Update on Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 6:25AM by Lisa A. Silver

FYI, a list of the blogs can be found on the "home" page.

Blog Interruption: To Kill A Mockingbird

I interrupt my blog scheduled for today for good reason. Yesterday, I saw the excellent Theatre Calgary production of To Kill a Mockingbird. The play, based on the book by Harper Lee, recounts a seminal year in the childhood of Jean Louise (Scout) Finch in the backdrop of a rape trial of a Black man in the deep American South of the 1930s. Scout's father, Atticus Finch, is the lawyer, representing the accused.

The case has already been decided by the townspeople many years before the trial even starts; the victim is a White woman. The audience knows this and knows the inevitable will happen; an innocent man will be convicted and put to death because of the colour of his skin. We know this and yet we hope. As Jean Louise, her brother Jem, and her friend, Dill, hope, so we too hope. But like a train wreck waiting to happen, it happens and the shock of the inevitable is still crushing no matter how we try to cushion ourselves from it.

This play/book is an important reminder of the frailty of human kind and the impact which justice and injustice has on it. Indeed, one cannot help but feel, after reading the book or watching the play or movie, that equality and justice is the paramount goal for which we all strive, even if it takes us a long time to get there.

In order to get there, according to Atticus Finch, we must have empathy for others, live in another man's shoes so to speak, see the world through another woman's eyes; the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, and yes, even the prejudiced. Only then can we truly recognize each other and make steps, even baby steps, toward a free and just society.

Thank you Harper Lee for this reminder.

For more on literature, law, and miscarriages of justice see my October 18 blog on Julian Barnes, Sherlock Holmes, and A Miscarriage of Justice. For more on the backdrop to the case dramatized in To Kill A Mockingbird, read about the Scottsboro case here.  On the banning of this book in schools read the 2009 Toronto Star article here. Finally, read the book, go to the play, or watch the movie!

Tomorrow, I will reconnect with the Supreme Court of Canada and the case they should and, possibly, will take.