R. v. Hamilton, [2004] 72 OR is a very significant case in Canada regarding sentencing for criminal acts. In 2004, two young, black, single mothers (Hamilton and Mason) pleaded guilty to charges of smuggling cocaine from Jamaica to Canada. The women were found guilty and the trial judge gave them a conditional sentence. The Crown appealed, believing that the sentence was too light given the seriousness of the crime (“The Top Five” 1). I will defend the trial judge's decision of a conditional sentence using the three main arguments of criminal legal abolitionism and Angela Davis's alternatives to abolitionism. Criminal legal abolitionism is based on three main arguments. The first is that criminal law today is oppressive and should be abolished. I agree with this argument to some extent as the idea that the law is oppressive can ring true in many circumstances. However, the idea that the law should be abolished in its entirety may be too extreme. Law is a useful technique that can help society function cohesively. There are many avenues the law can choose to reform. In Canada, imprisonment is one of the most commonly used criminal punishments and has not always proven to be the most effective. The incarceration of so many individuals is oppressive and the moral law is seen as a dictatorship of those in power and may reflect an anarchic society. In the case of R v. Hamilton, the trial judge recognized that not all circumstances are the same, and that there are other ways to deal with criminals than imprisonment. He realized that every criminal is different, the reasons for committing the crime are different and, accordingly, the punishment should vary. While a “ruling is not an opportunity… middle of paper… for abolitionist alternatives that focuses on reforms to the legal system and gives first-hand experience of how incarceration is not always the answer. He says it's important to consider the specific individual when determining a sentence. In conclusion, due to the norm of crime and punishment in North America, when a judge goes out of bounds and takes into consideration personal experiences, life situations, and looks at the criminals rather than exclusively the crime, the case is usually appealed. The criminal law is oppressive, one-sided, and ignores other avenues of punishment or rehabilitation. The three main arguments of critical legal abolitionism support the trial judge's decision to issue a conditional sentence. Angela Davis' perspective on the criminal legal system also supports the trial judge's decision and provides knowledge for potential reform.