Reference no: EM133284807

Question - Is Sociological Theory Reflected in Criminal Justice Practice?

In September 2009, 28-year-old Nasir Khokhar was found dead in a park in Merritt, British Columbia. He had been stabbed 34 times; he had 16 knife wounds in his back and side, 10 in his chest, and 8 in his neck, one of which had severed his jugular vein. He had been drinking in the park that day with Kleon Pop and Pop's brother, a juvenile offender, both of whom were charged with second-degree murder, but who ultimately pleaded guilty to manslaughter. At the time of the killing, all three men were very drunk. The blood alcohol level of the victim was 272 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (or three times the legal limit for driving a car), and it was conceded at trial that the blood alcohol levels of all participants were quite similar. Pop could not recall much of the incident that led to the death of Khokhar. At the time of the offence, Pop, an Aboriginal man, was 21 years old; his father is a member of the Soda Creek Indian Band and his mother is from the Canoe Creek Indian Band, both of which are near Williams Lake, British Columbia. Both of Pop's parents are alcoholics; his father left his mother when Pop was a small child, and his mother has had six children with four different fathers. Pop experienced physical abuse from both his father and his various stepfathers. Additionally, his mother and one of his stepfathers would often leave the house for days to pursue drinking binges, leaving the children to look after themselves, often without any food. In short, the Pop family has a long, multi-generational history of both alcoholism and child abuse. Initially, Pop was effectively sentenced to five years' imprisonment. At the point of this sentencing, he was given credit for three years' imprisonment before trial and sentencing, and then sentenced to a further term of two years less a day, with this detention to be followed by a three-year probation order. In April 2013, the British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that the length of the sentence did not give sufficient weight to the social circumstances of Pop's upbringing, and to his unique status as an Aboriginal offender. The Court of Appeal quoted approvingly from the Supreme Court of Canada's 2012 judgment in the case of R v. Ipeelee: Canadian criminal law is based on the premise that criminal liability only follows from voluntary conduct. Many Aboriginal offenders find themselves in situations of social and economic deprivation with a lack of opportunities and limited options for positive development. While this rarely-if ever-attains a level where one could properly say that their actions were not voluntary and therefore not deserving of criminal sanction, the reality is that their constrained circumstances may diminish their moral culpability. As a consequence of this logic-taking account of the diminished degree of moral responsibility for this Aboriginal offender-the Court of Appeal reduced Pop's sentence to one year from two years less a day, bringing total time to be spent in custody down from five years to four. Madam Justice Bennett, writing for a unanimous three-member Court of Appeal bench, concluded: While the circumstances of the offence involved the infliction of multiple stab wounds, the level of moral blameworthiness was significantly reduced because of the circumstances of Mr. Pop, including his degree of intoxication, his background and circumstances, as well as the fact, acknowledged by the Crown at sentencing, that Mr. Khokhar appeared to be the aggressor and there were elements of self-defence and provocation. None of the factors amounted to a justification of his conduct, but are circumstances relevant to assessing Mr. Pop's moral blameworthiness. (R v. Pop, 2013, para. 28).

Questions -

1. In maybe one to two paragraphs, what can you say about this case?

2. Do you agree with the courts' opinions quoted above? Why or why not?

3. To what extent should one's social background and upbringing be a consideration when assessing his or her "moral blameworthiness"? What other factors should courts consider instead of or in addition to social background and upbringing?

4. Imagine that you're a dissenting judge on this Court of Appeal bench. What might your argument be?

5. Make your own assessment of what Kleon Pop's sentence should be. Then, after reading this chapter, return to this case study. How has your perspective changed? Do you propose a more severe or a more lenient sentence than you did initially?

6. After reading this chapter, consider the various sociological theories described. Are any reflected in the practice of criminal justice presented in this case study? If yes, which ones?