Did the Supreme Court say Canadian judges have been too soft on punishment
So, episode 98 – a new record. But you know that right? Because you subscribe to the show on iTunes and have already rated and reviewed the podcast – right? You should.
Hey look we have a sponsor! Let the podcast money start rolling in! But seriously a huge thanks to Emond Publishing!
Now you can join The Docket’s Discord chatroom. Join the Discord channel, take part in the ongoing chat, and listen to live recordings with this link: https://discord.gg/2TzUamZ
With Emilie on the campaign trial – and Oh My Goodness she has been killing it – special guest, former Supreme Court judge, and current mother-in-law Louise Arbour joins Michael and steps up to the mic to break down the latest Supreme Court case.
In R. v. Poulin the Supreme Court interprets 11(i) of the Charter – and it is super interesting – we promise!
The Globe and Mail reported that the Supreme Court ruled Canadian judges have been too soft on punishment for 30 years. But did the Court really say that? And does the split decision stand up to a critical analysis.
Louise pulls no punches and even pulls back the curtains about how she made decisions when she was on Canada’s highest court.
Subscribe to The Docket on iTunes to get the latest episode pumped straight into your earbuds. If you like the show your subscriptions, comments and ratings really help us (so do that and then do it on your friends computer too) – Click Here.
You can also access the podcast on SoundCloud.
Emilie Taman on Twitter: @EmilieTaman
Michael Spratt on Twitter: @mspratt
If you like show spread the word.