Sauve v. Canada

“51. The following persons are not qualified to vote at an election shall not vote at an election:”

(e) Every person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution serving a sentence of two years or more.

The issues raised by this case are that Sauve has challenged that s. 51(e) is in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More precisely sections 1, 3, 15. (1). For clarification I will explain these sections in brief detail.

Section 1 states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Section 3, which guarantees our democratic, rights states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be

Our final argument dealt with the issue of citizenship. We feel that in our society the right to vote is a right of all free citizens. That the government states due to their incarceration inmates are technically not free anymore this does not change the fact that they are still citizens of Canada. And as section 3 of the Charter says all “citizens” of Canada have the right to vote no matter where in Canada they are. Barring fraud on the original citizenship application you citizenship cannot be taken away. Also as we all know s. 3 of the Charter is excluded from the effect of s. 33 of the Charter meaning that nothing should be able to strip someone of their right to vote in free elections.

The crown then goes on to speak about the proportionality of s. 51(e) in the sense that criminals while knowingly breaking the laws that most hold true should have expected the loss of certain liberties. “The idea of punishment is based upon the merit of the individual and it recognizes...criminals as rational...individuals who have made choices” .

All are in agreement that repeat offenders pose a danger to society and should be punished for the crimes they have committed and the people they have hurt. The crown states that there is a rational connection between the limiting of voting rights for inmates and respect for the rule of law and for society as well as greater civic pride. My friends for the appellant stated “of 14 179 inmates that were sampled there was on average 29.5 convictions per inmate” . The convictions of those sampled ranged from theft to murder and so on. In our society as in any other these crimes are of a serious nature and warrant a suitable punishment. By establishing a cut-off of two years it was felt by Parliament that serious criminal offenders would be caught. Since voting is such a fundamental democratic right of our society, Parliament felt that the loss of that right would be an additional factor in the successful rehabilitation of inmates upon their return to society. It is seen by some as a rational alternative to an increased prison sentence.

The crowns main objective in th

Some topics in this essay:
Elections Act, Ms Tyson, House Commons, Ms Grant, Canada Barring, Rights Freedoms, Court Canada, Sauve Canada, charter rights, rights freedoms, allowing inmates, inmates vote, voting rights, elections act, allowing inmates vote, minimal impairment, Charter Rights, , respect rule law, vote free, demonstrably justified, rule law society, section 1, charter rights freedoms, voting restrictions placed,