Example: Your case: Case Name: Bedford vs. R Case Name: Lohan vs. R Charter Section: Section 7; “Eeveryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. ” Charter Section to be used: Section 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of a person Section 12: Everyone has the right now to be subjected to any cruel or unusual punishment Search: Go to Google, search for Section Seven, Charter of Rights and Freedoms Search for The Section Using Google/Wikipedia Read: Read the summary of the section; write down/ identify precedent cases that are mentionedRead Summary/Print Relevant Paragraphs Relevant Paragraphs: In the 2001 extradition case United States v.

Burns,[6] the Supreme Court declined to decide whether capital punishment would classify in Canadian law as a cruel and unusual punishment and therefore a direct violation of section 12. They did, however, state that execution certainly “engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment,” noting its impossibility to correct (in cases of wrongful conviction) and its perceived “arbitrary” nature, as well as the scepticisms that it really would decrease crime rates.The Court also took into consideration that Parliament had already abolished the death penalty within Canada itself. Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen (1977). Cruel and unusual punishment was thus defined as punishment “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency” or “grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate. ” Justice Lamer, writing for the Court in R.

v.Smith, went on to provide some guides as to how to measure proportionality, listing as special considerations the seriousness of the crime committed by the individual, the “personal characteristics” of the individual, and the arious types of punishments available that could effectively “punish, rehabilitate or deter this particular offender or to protect the public from this particular offender. ” Precedent Case(s) R.

vs . Morgentaler Precedent Case(s)Write it/them down Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen United States v.Burns Link to and Read the Precedent Case: Link to, Read, and Print Precedent Case Summarize the Precedent case R. vs.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Morgentaler legalized abortion in Canada, because in this case, the Judge agreed that a women’s right to security (of her body) is infringed if she has no access oa legal abortion. Summarize the Precedent case in own words In the US v. Burns case, the supreme court stated that execution “engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment”, and there are also possibilities of wrongful convictions.In the Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen case, cruel and unusual punishment was defined as “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency” or “grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate.

” And also states that the personal characteristics of a person should help determine a punishment that can unish, rehabilitate or deter the offender to protect the public. Connect the precedent case to your case mfour Honour, a colleague of yours argued in R.Morgentaler that a woman’s right to security (of her body) is infringed when abortions are not legally available. Therefore, you should rule in favour of our client Mrs. Bedford, because her right to life is infringed if she is unable to legally operate a bawdy house; the streets are unsafe and anecdotes and statistical evidence shows that life is threatened without access to places which help guarantee a prostitute’s security. ” Connect precedent case(s) to your case, with phrase to be used in the mock trial mfour honour, in the US V.Burns case a colleague of yours argues that execution “engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment” and another colleague of yours stated that cruel and unusual punishment was defined as “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency” or “grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate.

” In the Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen case. For these reasons, we have determined that Lohans case is an example of cruel and unusual punishment. “