The doctrine of spousal privileged communication existed in the common law and the Canadian law for centuries until it was abruptly abrogated in the year 2015 by the previous conservative government in light of the victims’ rights movement, without much debate or discussion in the parliament. Communications between spouses (and now partners) were privileged on the ground that they were so closely identified with each other than an aura of bias would surround any testimonial evidence they may present before a court against their partner, due to an inherent or vested interest in the trial. Until 2015, the reason this privileged communication was protected, with some limitations, was due to the preservation of marital harmony. Why was the preservation of marital harmony no more a social value in Canada? I argue that this unfounded and abrupt abrogation was unwarranted and since the same was done without any research, it will have long term implications in criminology. Therefore, this paper has three key aims, firstly, to explore the concept, meaning and the origin of spousal privileged communication in Canada and the commonwealth including the reasons behind safeguarding and fostering spousal relationships over other relationships. Secondly, the applicability and scope of spousal privileged communication in Canada pre and post 2015, i.e. Bill C-32 that abrogated spousal privileged communication in Canada. Chapter 2 will also address some key points that contradicts the intention of the legislature behind abrogating spousal privileged communication. Thirdly, the paper argues that the spousal privileged communication should have been retained, and draws upon evidence from criminological, sociological and legal realms to define four key reasons why this is so. This paper essentially calls for further understanding of the causal mechanisms that flow from the abrogation of this spousal privilege and for monitoring future outcomes through longitudinal studies.
{"title":"‘Honey let’s just keep the doors open’: A Critical study on the abrogation of spousal privileged communication in Canada and its implications in criminology","authors":"S. Vashishtha","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2865792","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2865792","url":null,"abstract":"The doctrine of spousal privileged communication existed in the common law and the Canadian law for centuries until it was abruptly abrogated in the year 2015 by the previous conservative government in light of the victims’ rights movement, without much debate or discussion in the parliament. Communications between spouses (and now partners) were privileged on the ground that they were so closely identified with each other than an aura of bias would surround any testimonial evidence they may present before a court against their partner, due to an inherent or vested interest in the trial. Until 2015, the reason this privileged communication was protected, with some limitations, was due to the preservation of marital harmony. Why was the preservation of marital harmony no more a social value in Canada? I argue that this unfounded and abrupt abrogation was unwarranted and since the same was done without any research, it will have long term implications in criminology. Therefore, this paper has three key aims, firstly, to explore the concept, meaning and the origin of spousal privileged communication in Canada and the commonwealth including the reasons behind safeguarding and fostering spousal relationships over other relationships. Secondly, the applicability and scope of spousal privileged communication in Canada pre and post 2015, i.e. Bill C-32 that abrogated spousal privileged communication in Canada. Chapter 2 will also address some key points that contradicts the intention of the legislature behind abrogating spousal privileged communication. Thirdly, the paper argues that the spousal privileged communication should have been retained, and draws upon evidence from criminological, sociological and legal realms to define four key reasons why this is so. This paper essentially calls for further understanding of the causal mechanisms that flow from the abrogation of this spousal privilege and for monitoring future outcomes through longitudinal studies.","PeriodicalId":418997,"journal":{"name":"International journal of criminology and sociological theory","volume":"69 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123247399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-08-25DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-52688-5_5
T. Owen
{"title":"Cyber Violence: Towards a Predictive Model Drawing Upon Genetics, Psychology and Neuroscience","authors":"T. Owen","doi":"10.1057/978-1-137-52688-5_5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52688-5_5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":418997,"journal":{"name":"International journal of criminology and sociological theory","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129148132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper offers an appraisal of the relationship between sociology and philosophy grounded in a critique of the former discipline’s failure to contend with the dominance of neoliberalism in the run up to the financial crisis. In the first instance, it considers the prevailing philosophical ethos after the end of the Cold War and what Francis Fukuyama (1992) called the ‘End of History’. It observes the emergence of an increasingly unchallenged political monad around the conjoined principles of liberal democracy and neoliberal economics and its ascendance to the status of socio-historical universality despite becoming increasingly problematic. The second half of the essay then carries this politicalphilosophical analysis into an exploration of contemporary sociology and its approach to the intellectual critique of dominant ideas and structures. It proposes that an emergent strain of philosophical relativism has inadvertently moved us away from some of the critical responsibilities of the traditional intellectual and eroded our capacity to offer practical alternatives to overwhelmingly neoliberal governance. The article ends on the hopeful note that a slight change in tack might push us toward reclaiming responsibilities and revitalising the debate on social transformation.
{"title":"Relativizing Universality: Sociological Reactions to Liberal Universalism","authors":"M. Horsley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2123530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2123530","url":null,"abstract":"This paper offers an appraisal of the relationship between sociology and philosophy grounded in a critique of the former discipline’s failure to contend with the dominance of neoliberalism in the run up to the financial crisis. In the first instance, it considers the prevailing philosophical ethos after the end of the Cold War and what Francis Fukuyama (1992) called the ‘End of History’. It observes the emergence of an increasingly unchallenged political monad around the conjoined principles of liberal democracy and neoliberal economics and its ascendance to the status of socio-historical universality despite becoming increasingly problematic. The second half of the essay then carries this politicalphilosophical analysis into an exploration of contemporary sociology and its approach to the intellectual critique of dominant ideas and structures. It proposes that an emergent strain of philosophical relativism has inadvertently moved us away from some of the critical responsibilities of the traditional intellectual and eroded our capacity to offer practical alternatives to overwhelmingly neoliberal governance. The article ends on the hopeful note that a slight change in tack might push us toward reclaiming responsibilities and revitalising the debate on social transformation.","PeriodicalId":418997,"journal":{"name":"International journal of criminology and sociological theory","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123816155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：