Analysis of Judicial Discretion in Project Two Submission, Class 7-2

This project analyzes a memo addressed to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee concerning a judge's discretionary actions in a sexual assault case. The student, acting as the public representative of the victim's family, expresses concerns about the lenient sentence and the judge's decision-making process. The memo scrutinizes the judge's application of legal principles, considering the impact of the ruling on the victim's rights and the broader societal implications. It highlights the importance of considering all facts of the case, including the victim's lack of consent, the physical evidence of the assault, and the defendant's actions. The student argues that the judge failed to deliver fair justice, potentially promoting negative views on sexual assault consequences. The project examines the discretionary decisions made by the judge, identifying potential legal and ethical impacts, and underscores the need for a judgment that adequately reflects the gravity of the offense and supports the victim's rights.

Running head: DISCRETION CLASS 7-2 PROJECT TWO SUBMISSION ASSIGNMENT
DISCRETION CLASS 7-2 PROJECT TWO SUBMISSION ASSIGNMENT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1DISCRETION CLASS 7-2 PROJECT TWO SUBMISSION ASSIGNMENT
To: Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee
From: [Name of the student-To be filled by the student]
Date: [To be filled by the student]
Subject: Discretionary Actions of Judge
I am the public representative of Emily Doe and her family. My letter is to express distress
concerning the discretionary verdict and actions of the recent conviction of the defendant
made by the judge in Miss Doe’s case. I would like to articulate my worries regarding the
following:
In the present case, the Judge has offered jail sentence as punishment to the offender for six
months with lifetime registration as a sex offender. It can be seen that applying the provision
of section 271 of The Canadian Criminal Code, the punishment provided is the bare
minimum punishment which is granted only in cases of summary conviction but not for those
offenses which are indictable. The judges indeed have the discretion to grant minimum and
maximum punishment in a trial under the doctrine of separation of power and the same has
been guaranteed by the Canadian charter of rights and freedom. However, a judge while
applying the power must keep in mind that such a decision must promote the principle of fair
justice and unbiased decision making which is one of the fundamental principles of the rule
of law.
Therefore, the judge while granting such decision should have considered the prevailing
guidelines as well as by following the doctrine of ratio decidendi must have considered the
decision concluded by the court of law in the case of R v JA and People v. Turner, where
consent has been recognized as an utmost important factor to determine the character of an
assault as sexually influenced. The court, in this case, held that in case of an unconscious
person the presence of consent a determining factor for sexual assault as it is to consider that

2DISCRETION CLASS 7-2 PROJECT TWO SUBMISSION ASSIGNMENT
whether that person was in a position to give consent for such action by the offender or not.
Therefore, it can assume from the decision that the judge has considered the background of
the victim before ordering such a lenient decision. But the other factors which the judge must
have to consider is the absence of consent on the part of the victim, application of force by
the offender upon the victim's body which can be evident from the injuries in her body. The
most important thing which the Judge should have considered is that such action by the
offender is a denial of the victim's right to involve in sexual activity with her consent and
such an incident might have caused her mental and social distress for the entire lifetime.
Therefore, offering such loose judgment is nothing but the denial of the victim's fundamental
right to get fair justice upon happening of such wrong. Therefore, it can be understood from
the fact of the case that there was grave injustice happened through the decision upon the
victim which promotes a negative view in the society regarding the consequences of sexual
assault, especially for the victim. It is necessary to offer the victim a reasonable judgment as
this is the only thing that can divert his or her mind from the social stigma that they are going
to carry from that incident. Further, the judge has miserably failed to recognize the discovery
of the witnesses and their subsequent statement regarding the crime which indicates that the
offender was surely involved in such activity with his full sense of understanding about the
consequences of the offense.
If the Judge could have considered all these facts in respect of the victim, rather than seeing
the act as a ‘moments of sexual activity' as referred by the defendant's family, then he could
have delivered a satisfactory judgment according to the gravity of the offense.
Sincerely,
[Name of the student-To be filled by the student]

3DISCRETION CLASS 7-2 PROJECT TWO SUBMISSION ASSIGNMENT
Reference:
California Legislative Information. (2013). Penal Code Section 261. Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?
sectionNum=261.&lawCode=PEN
Leagle. (2019). People v. Turner. Retrieved from
https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20180808037
R v JA 2011 SCC 28