Ideablawg’s Weekly Connections: From Justitia to Tupac

Art is the connection this week; art for art’s sake, art as a legal symbol, and art as the spoken word:

1. Art for Art’s sake: One of the best museum in Amsterdam is the Van Gogh Museum – a simple walk through does not do it justice (note – this is a foreshadowing of the next connection). The majestic melancholy of Van Gogh’s work is fully displayed as you walk pictorially through the artist’s troubled life. But wait, there’s more we can do in our digital world, we can actually walk through his paintings in this lovely 3D Animation by artist Luca Agnani. Soon we will actually be able to interact with the subjects of his paintings in “Loving Vincent,” a feature-length painted animation projectkickstarted” by the Oscar-winning studio BreakThru Films

2. Art as a Legal Symbol: As mentioned last week, Peter Goodrich’s article on Specters of Law discusses legal imagery and legal obfuscation. A fascinating passage in the article reveals the original image of Justice was not blindfolded. Based originally on the Greek Titan Goddess Themis, Justice was a blend of Greek and Roman female deities centered on law, order, and prophecy. Justice or Justitia was not depicted blindfolded until the Renaissance. In fact, Justitia, with her eyes wide open, viewed the world with utter clarity.  No one can hide from Justice. Why she became blindfolded is a bit of a mystery but whatever the reason, the blindfold became a symbol for the impartiality of the law. Today, there are very few images of Justice without a blindfold but the few are significant. Our own Supreme Court of Canada is pre-figured by the figure of Justice or Ivstitia;cloaked, embracing her sword of Justice, with no impediment to her sight. Even our legal progenitor, the British, have a golden statue of Lady Justice on the top of the Old Bailey criminal courthouse, outstretched with scales perfectly balanced but without blindfold. Banksy’s version of the Lady can be found here – blindfolded and unblindfolded – albeit much differently attired. 

3. Art as the Spoken Word: Lady Justice reminds me of Lady Liberty and Tupac Shakur’s poem Lady Liberty Needs Glasses. “Mrs. Justice” makes a cameo in the poem, which you can read here. Or, if you prefer audio, listen to Malcolm Jamal Warner read it from the “Rose That Grew From Concrete” album.

4. Art as Rhetoric: Finally, I give you the Greek orator, Demosthenes. If you want to learn about him and the reason why I was reading his speeches this week, read/listen to my blog/podcast from January 31. Unfortunately, this “art of persuasion” has not been nurtured in the law schools of today, either in its spoken or written form. Read “The Oration on the Crown" to see what we are missing. 

    Section 12 – Anyone Want To Play Double Jeopardy?: Episode 14 of the Ideablawg Podcast on the Criminal Code of Canada

    Double jeopardy, like the presumption of innocence, is a legal term, which is a familiar part of our social discourse. The phrase is at once a movie, a book (actually multiple books), and even a segment of a game show. The concept, that an accused may not be tried or punished for the same offence more than once, is ancient and runs deep in our “fundamental freedoms” psyche. The Greek orator, paid speech writer, and all-around democrat, Demosthenes in his speech of 355 BCE Against Leptines, reminded the Athenian jury that “the laws forbid the same man to be tried twice on the same issue.”  Roman law later codified this concept when they published The Digests or Pandects of Justinian and referred to the maxim ne bis in idem or “not twice in the same” in Book 48, Title 2, Section 7(2). The maxim eventually was subsumed into English common law, however it was strictly defined and originally applied to those acquitted or convicted of capital offences. See Blackstone Commentaries in Book 4, Chapter 26 for more on the English law equivalent.

    Not surprisingly, this restricted concept was handed down to us when we codified our Canadian criminal laws. In the 1892 Criminal Code, section 933 codified the Canadian principle under Proceedings After Conviction pertaining to “Punishments Generally.” As it is very similar to our present version under section 12, I will not reproduce it here but please note that the prohibition against double punishment is not limited to capital crimes. Also note that I referred to the concept as “double punishment” and not “double jeopardy.” To explain this difference, let’s read section 12:

    Where an act or omission is an offence under more than one Act of Parliament, whether punishable by indictment or on summary conviction, a person who does the act or makes the omission is, unless a contrary intention appears, subject to proceedings under any of those Acts, but is not liable to be punished more than once for the same offence.

    Immediately, it is clear that this section protects double punishment, not double jeopardy – an accused can therefore be charged and tried for similar offences, but once convicted, the accused cannot be punished more than once. This is much different than the American concept of double jeopardy as found in the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, in which a person, who is subject to the same offence, is not to be “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” In the American version, therefore, even the risk or danger of being convicted is being protected. The Canadian codification in the Code, like the English principle, does not go as far.

    In fact, even our Charter protection under section 11(h), albeit broader than section 12 of the Code, is still not as robust as the American conception.  Section 11(h) of the Charter reads: 

    Any person charged with an offence has the right if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again.

    The Charter prohibits double punishment, like section 12 of the Code, but also prohibits retrying an already acquitted accused. It is unsurprising that section 12 of the Code does not refer to acquittals considering its antecedents as a section under the punishment part of the original Code. Also, both of these concepts – not to be convicted or tried twice – come from the common law and, as we learned in a previous podcast, common law defences under section 8(3) are still available. Therefore, does section 12 really need to be under the Criminal Code? Those common law defences are known as autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. Autrefois acquit, meaning previously acquitted, and autrefois convict, meaning previously convicted, are actually referred to in the Criminal Code as “special pleas” under s. 607. Yes, we will eventually discuss this section but much much further down this podcast road.

    In any event, autrefois convict has been further refined as it only applies after there has been a complete adjudication on a matter including sentence. Before punishment, pursuant to s. 12 of the Code, an accused who has been tried and convicted of offences arising out of the same transaction, can rely on the case law principle prohibiting multiple convictions from the 1975 SCC R v Kienapple. Thus, an accused charged and convicted of driving with over 80 mgs of alcohol (section 253(1)(b)) and driving while impaired (section 253(1)(a)) arising from the same transaction, will not be punished for both offences but will have one of the charges stayed or “kienappled” as defence lawyers like to call it. As an aside there are a few cases, which have become verbs in the legal nomenclature, such as a case being “askoved” or stayed due to a trial not being heard within a reasonable time pursuant to s. 11(b) of the Charter.

    The lesson learned from this podcast and the previous podcast on s. 6 the ersatz “presumption of innocence” found in the Code, is that our societal perspective of law is not really reflected in our Criminal Code. Instead our perspective is coloured by the media, by the American experience, and by our own assumptions of what the law is and what the law is not.

    Join me for the next podcast when we discuss section 13 of the Criminal Code.

     

     

    Episode 14 of the Ideablawg Podcast on Section 12 of the Criminal Code of Canada