Event Description
The life sentence is an extraordinary and grave sentence. Yet it has become normalized within Canadian legal, social, and political discourse, even when applied to young people whose diminished moral responsibility is constitutionally recognized. This paper argues that it is time to revisit and fundamentally rethink the constitutionality of imposing life sentences on youth. Drawing on the 2025 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v I.M. affirming a high burden of proof for imposing adult sentences on youth, the paper discusses relevant constitutional principles and evidence about the lived experience and impact of life sentences that should inform the limits of state punishment. It demonstrates how such sentences perpetuate harm and undermine stated penal objectives, highlighting the enduring nature of the life sentence, a reality rarely considered in decisions to impose life sentences on youth. Even where parole is granted, individuals sentenced as youth remain under the weight of the sentence for life, constrained by ongoing supervision and the perpetual threat (and reality) of re-incarceration. These harms have never been meaningfully measured against the stated objectives of lifelong punishment and relevant constitutional principles. This paper contends that genuine compliance with these principles requires a constitutional re-examination of life sentences for youth and a broader reconsideration of the place of the life sentence in Canadian law.
For Zoom info, email Kris Neufeld at: eventassistant@allard.ubc.ca.
Speaker
- Allard School of Law
- Research
- All Students
- Faculty
- Graduate Students
- JD
- Staff
- Research Talks