Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

1314 Words3 Pages

In Canada, over two-dozen offences in the Criminal Code carry mandatory minimum sentences. These offences include first and second-degree murder, a series of firearm-related offences, impaired driving and related offences, high treason, and gambling offences (Gabor and Crutcher 2001). Although there are so many crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences, they are not the best way to reduce crime in Canada.

Mandatory minimum sentences make up a large proportion of the criminal penalties in Canada; yet, there is little reliable evidence showing that variations in the severity of punishment have a substantial deterrent effect (Durlauf, Steven N., Nagin, and Daniel S. 2011). Mandatory minimum sentences also create harsher penalties for crimes that don’t deserve it, and don’t take into account the scenario in which these crimes were committed (Gabor, Thomas 2001). For example, the inflexibilities for crimes such as murder in certain contexts. An instance such as a spouse kills her tormentor in a premeditated fashion. Crimes like this are almost always prompted by severe treats to the spouse’s life, or the life of their children (Gabor, Thomas 2001). …show more content…

Sentencing is an extremely individualized basis, which should be treated as such (Pomerance, Renee M, 2013). The causes and effects of each individual situation cannot possibly be summed up into one punishment. Judges are extremely good at their job, and should be able to supply punishments that they believe are fair and just for each individual incident. Canada does not need so many mandatory minimum sentences, and should be allowing the judges to do their job, by using their own discretion. By allowing the judges to think for themselves, and use past judgements on certain cases, Canada will have a much more fair and democratic criminal justice program. Therefore, causing the crime rates to eventually

Open Document