Consider The Supreme Court Of Canada's 2012 Decision In R V Ipeelee

Consider the Supreme Court of Canada's 2012 decision in R v. Ipeelee. Which of the two summaries of the reasons of the Supreme Court justices is most persuasive? R v. Ipelee, 2012 SCC 13 (Links to an external site.) [Ipeelee], is a complicated case. Ipeelee (39 years old, raised without parental guidance (in an abusive home), alcoholic and on drugs, history of committing violent offences (against women) when intoxicated)) was declared long-term offenders and had long-term supervision orders (LTSOs) imposed. The judge sentenced him six years’ incarceration followed by an LTSO after being designated a long-term offender. Also, once he was released, he committed an offense while intoxicated, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal too. Later this case came to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the judge made the decision in his favor. This case revolves around the principles governing sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. Specifically,

This criminal code encourages sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing. Also, the enactment of s. 718.2 (e) is a definite direction by Parliament to pay particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders during the sentencing process because those circumstances are unique and different from those of non-Aboriginal offenders. Further, when sentencing Aboriginal offenders, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonization, displacement, and residential schools. And they should look at how that history continues to translate into lower educational accomplishment, lower income, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse, suicide, and, of course, higher levels of imprisonment of Aboriginal peoples. (Canadian Law, an Introduction 6th Edition: Neil Boyd 2015; page,