From Gross Disproportionality to Human Dignity: Redefining Section 12 in the Context of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

In this short paper, we contend that human dignity must remain at the heart of the section 12 analysis, and should be strengthened in future cases that will be tackling the remaining mandatory minimums. In so doing, we critically examine the Supreme Court’s recent development of the section 12 framework, particularly in light of the 2023 mandatory minimum jurisprudence, with a specific emphasis on the concept of human dignity. The analysis centers on the role of reasonable hypotheticals in advancing the primary objective of section 12 — safeguarding human dignity — by scrutinizing the three pivotal components of the gross disproportionality analysis. We suggest that the section 12 analysis focuses on proportionality and human dignity rather than the current “gross disproportionality” standard in assessing what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These suggestions are underpinned by an approach that considers proportionality a principle rooted in human dignity. Nevertheless, proportionality has its limits and therefore section 12 should be complemented by an approach that takes into account prison conditions and the effects of imprisonment on marginalized groups, which are rooted in inequalities. Finally, the analysis questions the third component of the gross disproportionality analysis, which calls for deference to the legislature in order to prioritize objectives that instrumentalize the individual and are contrary to human dignity. These objectives are problematic, we suggest, and best addressed within section 1 of the Charter.