Goals Of Sentencing Analysis

The goals of sentencing in the Canadian criminal justice system, as outlined in section 718 of the Criminal Code, serve the fundamental purpose of protecting society and preventing crime. These two primary goals relate to the principle of deterrence which has historically governed sentencing in common law and was formally codified in s.718(b). The principle serves as a warning to the offender and the general public that if a specific crime or prohibition is undertaken, consequences will be ensured by prosecution. This objective of reducing criminal conduct relates to traditional offences where the punishment is tailored to the intent of the offender to commit the offence. In other cases, where punishment reflects the consequences of the conduct

Although they are guided by past decisions as well as legislative provisions limiting their scope of freedom, judges have considerable leeway in crafting sentences. The Alberta case of R.v.Horon illustrates a prosecutor’s disagreement with fairy lenient sentencing in an impaired driving case causing bodily harm. The accused had been sentenced to a fine, probation, a community service order and a two year driving prohibition at trial (R .v. Horon, 1990). In the opinion of the Crown attorney, this judgement was inadequate in reflecting the goals of sentencing for consequence-related crimes. In his decision, Justice Stevenson cites several similar cases in which the sentences better reflected the government’s apparent deterrent goal of sentencing. This case presents the criminal justice system’s obvious emphasis on both specific and general deterrence as goals of sentencing for consequence-related crimes. Public deterrence, in this case, has been interpreted to be a primary goal and its application was based on the idea that tougher punishments for culpable acts possibly resulting in bodily harm would prevent intoxicated drivers from operating vehicles. Incarceration was clearly seen as a necessary sanction in denunciation of and reducing rates of drunk driving. This assumption rests on classical criminology’s rational choice theory,

Although this case predates the Gladue Principle which directs the courts to consider all sentencing options prior to imposing an incarceration sentence (Parrott, 2014), the judges failed to recognize the importance of rehabilitation. The accused received a two month sentence, which accordingly resulted in imprisonment in a provincial correctional facility where rehabilitation programs available to offenders are few and poorly funded (Public Services Foundation of Canada, 2015). Furthermore, the long-lived debate over the “tough on crime” approach in punitive sentencing resulted in considerable sociological research which undermines the Court of Appeal’s decision. For one, a majority of studies on this topic find that certainty of punitive sanctions is more effective in invoking fear of sanctions in criminals, than is the severity of possible punishment (Bailey, 1972). In this specific case, punishment had been delayed by the extensive and lengthy process of appeals and was uncertain due to the obvious disagreement between counsel and the judiciary. The court’s problematic reasoning on the effectiveness of sentence severity in relation to deterrence “assumes that human beings are rational actors who consider the consequences of