Question

should inmates be allowed to vote? law in action richard sauvé was serving a 25 - year sentence for first - degree murder. in 1992, he brought an action against the chief electoral officer of canada to have paragraph 51(e) of the canada elections act struck down as being contrary to s. 3 (right to vote) and s. 15 (equality rights) of the charter. at that time, paragraph 51(e) denied the right to vote to all inmates serving sentences in any penal institution for the commission of any offence. the ontario court of appeal and the federal court of appeal declared the paragraph unconstitutional. these decisions were upheld by the supreme court of canada. in response, parliament amended the offending paragraph so that prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more in a correctional institution were prohibited from voting. consequently, those prisoners serving less than two years were given voting privileges. once again sauvé challenged the limitation, and in 1995 he was successful. consequently, all prisoners were entitled to vote in the federal election. however, the victory was short - lived. in 1999, the federal court of appeal overturned the decision. the amended paragraph 51(e) that de - nied the vote to prisoners serving more than two years remained in force. in 2000, sauvé appealed the decision to the supreme court of canada. as of march 2002, the appeal had not been heard, and the issue continued to be the subject of ongoing litigation. 1. do you think inmates in federal and provincial prisons should retain their democratic rights while incarcerated? explain your position. 2. use the four criteria of “reasonable limits” established in r. v. oakes to determine how you think the supreme court of canada will rule on sauvés appeal. provide reasons for your answer.

Explanation:

1. Whether inmates should retain democratic rights while incarcerated is a complex legal - ethical issue. Arguments for could include the idea of maintaining their status as citizens and the potential for rehabilitation through political engagement. Arguments against may center on the idea that incarceration is a form of punishment that includes the loss of certain rights as a consequence of criminal behavior.
2. In R. v. Oakes, the "reasonable limits" criteria involve proportionality, rational connection, and minimal impairment. Applying this to Sauvé's appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada would likely consider if the restriction on inmates' voting rights is rationally connected to a valid objective (such as maintaining the integrity of the electoral process), if it is proportionate to that objective, and if it minimally impairs the right to vote. If the restriction is too broad and not tailored to the legitimate state aim, the Court may rule in Sauvé's favor. If the state can show a strong connection between the restriction and a valid goal and that it is the least restrictive means, the Court may uphold the restriction.

Answer:

1. There are valid arguments on both sides. Those in favor may emphasize the continued citizenship and rehabilitation aspects, while those against may focus on punishment - related loss of rights.
2. If the restriction on inmates' voting rights fails to meet the "reasonable limits" criteria in terms of rational connection, proportionality, and minimal impairment, the Supreme Court of Canada may rule in Sauvé's favor. If the state can justify the restriction under these criteria, it may be upheld.