ABSTRACT
On June 15, 2011, in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, a destructive riot broke out following Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. Precedent for the formal, prescriptive and punitive response by the police and courts was established by the 1992 case R v Loewen, 1 which determined general deterrence to be the principal sentencing purpose in riot cases, and retribution as necessary to meet this purpose. The previous year—2010—the inaugural Fasken Lecture was delivered in Vancouver: “The Essence of Responsive Regulation” (J. Braithwaite, 2011). Nine heuristics of the regulatory framework were discussed: attend to context; listen actively; engage resisters with fairness; praise committed innovation; achieve outcomes through support and innovation; signal a range of sanctions; engage wider networks; elicit active responsibility; evaluate and communicate lessons learnt. Through a formalized, rather than a responsive, regulatory response to the riots, Vancouver lost an opportunity for norm clarification, responsibility and education as a foundation for human capacity building and bridging at an individual, community, professional and institutional level.
