Titelaufnahme

Titel
An empirical and qualitative assessment of terrorism sentencing decisions in Canada since 2001: shifting away from the fundamental principle and towards cognitive biases / Michael Nesbitt (University of Calgary), Robert Oxoby (University of Calgary and IZA), Meagan Potier (University of Calgary) ; IZA Institute of Labor Economics
VerfasserNesbitt, Michael ; Oxoby, Robert J. ; Potier, Meagan
KörperschaftForschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit
ErschienenBonn, Germany : IZA Institute of Labor Economics, March 2019
Ausgabe
Elektronische Ressource
Umfang1 Online-Ressource (63 Seiten) : Diagramme
SerieDiscussion paper ; no. 12255
URNurn:nbn:de:hbz:5:2-185798 
Zugriffsbeschränkung
 Das Dokument ist öffentlich zugänglich im Rahmen des deutschen Urheberrechts.
Volltexte
An empirical and qualitative assessment of terrorism sentencing decisions in Canada since 2001: shifting away from the fundamental principle and towards cognitive biases [0.64 mb]
Links
Nachweis
Verfügbarkeit In meiner Bibliothek
Zusammenfassung (Englisch)

In this paper, we take a comprehensive and multidisciplinary look at terrorism sentencing decisions over a 17-year period, between September 2001 when the ATA was first conceived of and September 2018. In so doing, we first offer an empirical analysis of the sentences for all terrorism offenses to date, including the total number of sentences, conviction rates, charges, demographics associated with the accused and other factors. We then engage in a qualitative assessment of the sentencing decisions to date. We also investigate the role that section 718.2(a)(v) of the Criminal Code has had on terrorism sentences in Canada and whether it might help to explain the empirical and qualitative shifts we are seeing in terrorism sentencing decisions. Finally, we ask whether there is anything inherent to the legislative and judicial framing of terrorism as a crime, and therefore in its sentencing, that might explain the unique nature of terrorism sentences.