Date of Award
12-17-2015
Publication Type
Master Thesis
Degree Name
M.A.
Department
Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology
Keywords
Argumentation, Democratic Deliberation, Mandatory Minimums, New Right, Punitive Turn
Supervisor
Mann, Ruth
Rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Abstract
This paper explores the role of argumentation within the debates on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, that came into force in 2012. Through examining Hansard transcripts, this paper aims to investigate how argumentation on mandatory minimums was utilized in this political decision making setting to legitimize and accomplish this policy initiative. I draw upon the concepts of normative democratic deliberation, new right ideology and the punitive turn to explore the Harper government’s use of argumentation strategies and discuss their implications for the Canadian political process and the current direction of the administration of justice in Canada. This paper’s goal is to contribute to literature on mandatory minimums and policy making through an exploration of the political deliberative process through which the C-10 provisions on mandatory minimums were adopted.
Recommended Citation
Sivell, Caitlin, "Normative Democratic Deliberation and the Role of Argumentation in the Canadian Mandatory Minimum Sentence Debate" (2015). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 5668.
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/5668