Getting Away With Murder: The Canadian Criminal Justice System

by David M. Paciocco

Since Cain killed Abel, the crime of murder has fascinated humans. So, too, do murder trials. They enable us to be voyeurs, peering from a safe distance into the dark recesses of the human capacity for evil and deadly impulse, and allowing us to bear witness to the ceremonial punishment of wrongdoers.
If the process of fatal crime and punishment fascinates, the Canadian criminal justice system infuriates, with its technicalities, its habit of coddling offenders, its abuse of victims, its inane defences, and its parole system.
Using the docudrama of a crime of murder as a lead to each chapter, Getting Away with the Canadian Criminal Justice System unravels the mysteries of the criminal justice system, explaining how and why we sentence offenders and pointing out where we err, particularly with the parole system. It describes the reasons behind the system's technicalities and why some of the guilty receive their benefit. The book explores the inadequacies and excesses of criminal defences, and illustrates why the system is miserly when it comes to victims' rights. Suggesting that much of the loss of confidence in our criminal justice system is based on misunderstanding and inadequate information, the book provides information to fill in the gaps without becoming an apologia for the system. Although entertaining--written with a sense of humour and a bit of irreverence--the book is a serious, hard hitting, and candid work by a law professor who has acted both as prosecutor and defence counsel.

Genres: Nonfiction

Paperback

First published February 1, 1999

Reviews

[Jennifer Mackintosh · Rating 3 out of 5]

David Paciocco has an interesting perspective and a fairly good sense of humour which comes through his writing. He had a heck of a task in trying to convince the average Canadian citizen that certain common sense outrages in justice were actually for our benefit. He's open in acknowledging that some parts of the justice system are more politically movtivated than legally or morally fair.

I think he overestimates the average citizen's willingness to see justice fail to protect abstract rights. Our rights are critical and I, for one, am glad we're not living in a society with summary execution or torture-extracted confessions. But I cannot help but feel that if people are outraged with the law, then there's a problem which needs to be addressed. After all, that's how the law changes to reflect the current values of society.

He has very valid points about how jail is not a good instrument for rehabilitation and that deterrence doesn't tend to be a factor when people commit crimes. Thus promising that longer and harsher sentences will reduce crime is an impossible, if attractive, fantasy. He's also very good at explaining how our current system came about historically which is a fascinating bit of insight into our evolving culture.

He believes that judges must be given more flexibility in sentencing, that sentences should reflect the actual time to be served rather than lopping them short with automatic parole, that more emphasis needs to be placed on discovering the truth during trials rather than getting hung up on technicalities of process, and that we cannot allow gender politics or cultural sensitivity to take away accountability. All in all, it sounds like a good list to me.

He has some strong feelings about victims playing a role in sentencing. He regretfully maintains they are too biased due to their hurt to be fair. He may have a point in this but I believe there should be somewhere for the victims to have their say. If it can't be the criminal justice system, then a new place must be appointed.

All in all, a good book with interesting insights.