Are life sentences without the possibility of parole for multiple murders "cruel and unusual"? A constitutional comparative case analysis of R V Bissonnette: Canadian and American perspectives

For two countries that share a border, there is a paucity of comparative research examining section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States Eighth Amendment. This study critically examines Canada’s and America's divergent legal frameworks and jurisprudential interpretations surrounding Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Life of Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole for multiple murderers. The study employs a hypothetical application of the R v Bissonnette decision to the United States context to illustrate the complexities and distinctions inherent in their respective legal frameworks. By examining the constitutional underpinnings, jurisprudential traditions, and societal factors that shape each country's approach to sentencing in cases involving multiple murders, this analysis elucidates the role of the R v Bissonnette case in highlighting the differences between the two nations. Through an in-depth exploration of the living tree doctrine in Canada and the competing interpretations of originalism, textualism, and the living constitution in the United States, the study reveals how these differing constitutional paradigms inform the balance between punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of human rights in the context of criminal justice. The findings underscore the importance of cross-jurisdictional dialogue and comparative research to foster a deeper understanding of the underlying principles and values that guide each legal system, ultimately contributing to developing more humane and effective sentencing policies across jurisdictions.