mt_ignore
Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
jobsinlaw.ca

Editorial: A reasonable response to multiple murderers

Canada’s courts experienced a significant milestone last week as an Alberta judge considered a proposed 40-year period of parole ineligibility for triple murderer Travis Baumgartner.

Editorial: A reasonable response to multiple murderers
Editorial Obiter: Glenn Kauth
While there are lots of good reasons to be skeptical of the government’s crime crackdown more generally, there’s no doubt Baumgartner is a good candidate for a harsh rebuke. This month, he pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder for killing two colleagues as well as first-degree and attempted murder in relation to two other co-workers. He shot them while they were refilling a bank machine in June 2012. At the time, Baumgartner, 21, was having major money troubles.

While he would have received a life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years under the law as it stood until recently, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers Act allows judges to impose the parole ineligibility period consecutively. That means the court could have sentenced him to 75 years with no chance of parole, although counsel made a joint submission of 40 years.

Still, it’s worth questioning whether there’s much point to the new regime (and some lawyers doubt the legality of the sentence in Baumgartner’s case given wording in the law requiring a previous conviction). Murderers sentenced to life don’t get parole automatically anyway, so someone like Baumgartner may have served more than 25 years regardless. At the same time, courts also have to consider issues such as the totality principle, and it’s arguable that, had counsel gone down that route, sentencing Baumgartner to the maximum of 75 years with no chance of parole would have been unduly long and harsh. Baumgartner’s crime was particularly heinous, but beyond denunciation and deterrence, what would the point have been of sentencing him to 75 years with no chance of parole? What incentive would he have to behave and rehabilitate himself?

The law as it now stands, then, clearly allows for improper outcomes. But given that it’s one of those rare legislative amendments that allow for judicial discretion over whether to impose a harsher sentence, it’s not unreasonable. There’s no doubt many Canadians would consider 25 years too lenient for Baumgartner, so it’s not unfair for the law to acknowledge that while providing judges leeway in how they handle the issue.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Add comment



More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

Law Times reports that Paul Schabas has been elected as the new treasurer for the Law Society, and says one of his top priorities is access to justice. Do you think access to justice is one of the most pressing issues facing lawyers?
Yes, enhancing access to justice is a crucial priority for Ontario lawyers. These problems have an impact on my practice, and the the law profession in general.
No, enhancing access to justice is not a top priority for me. While it is a noble and idealistic goal, this does not impact my practice and should not be treated as a top priority.