Sentencing in Canada The Canadian justice system is organized into the police, courts and prisons (Goff, 2013, p.295). When a crime is committed it is up to the justice system to insure that justice is served. After an offender is arrested and charged, the courts look at the evidence presented and make a decision as to whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. If it can be proven the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, then the court must decide what kind of punishment they will receive. The punishment is decided with guidance of the Criminal Code of Canada (C.C.C.) taking into account factors surrounding the offence. Sentences may be more lenient or serve depending on the circumstances and type of offence committed. This …show more content…
Principles/Philosophy
The Canadian Criminal Code (1995) stated the main principles of sentencing as “to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions” (s. 718). Section 718(a-f) considers the factors sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter, to separate, to rehabilitate, to provide reparations and to promote a sense of responsibility.
The primary principle of sentencing is stated under section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, “a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” In other words the sentence must be fair to the offender while holding them responsible under mens rea; having a guilty mind. This idea holds that punishment has to be appropriate based on crime committed.
…show more content…
Specific deterrence applies specifically to individual offenders who have been previously sentenced. The severity of the punishment for an offence should keep the specific one individual from reoffending (Siegel et al, 2013, p.83). This focuses on individuals.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is another objective of sentencing. Rehabilitation is different from incapacitation and deterrence in that it does not always involve getting put behind bars. An offender may receive a sentence of rehabilitation where they are released back into society to complete a community based sentence (Goff, 2014 p.296). Rehabilitation also involves programs in prisons that have the goal of helping offenders return back to society (Goff, 2014, p.20). Prisons have also put in place programs to assist inmates, “the goal of these release programs are to ease the transition of offenders from the institution into the community while simultaneously promoting stable employment after release” (Cullen & Jonson, 2011, p.309). If a person has been in an institution for a long period of time it is often hard to adjust to life outside, which is why these programs are important in the justice
In today’s Canadian society, it is certain that criminal law is to serve and protect and its fundamental purpose is to prevent crime and punish offenders. However, there have been cases where criminal law has punished the offender who turned out to be innocent. A conviction is needed to show that the system is not in disrepute and to keep order and people safe in society. If a criminal cannot be caught then people will look down upon the system in disgrace. In many cases, officers will arrest an individual who fits a certain description that they know will lead to an arrest and conviction. In the case of Guy Paul Morin it shows how the system failed in aiding the innocent who abide to the law. The law is established to protect those who are innocent from being targeted because of the law.
Crime control and due process are two different ideal types of criminal justice. One could say they are extremes on a continuum. The role of crime control is to get the criminal off the street and to protect the innocent. The due process model of criminal justice is like an obstacle course, you have to keep going through legal obstacles to ensure in the end you convict the right person. In Canada the police lean toward crime control and the courts lean toward due process. This causes tension between the police and the courts. I will argue for both crime control and due process, putting more weight on due process If we did not have due process in Canada, people in positions of power, could manipulate the system for their own personal or political gain and railroad the innocent off to prison.
Canada’s criminal justice system largely focuses on rehabilitation, but Bourque’s harsh sentence is similar to the sentencing practices of the United States (Gagnon 2015). This is troubling as Canada’s rehabilitation focused criminal justice system appears to be working. Canada has a low rate of recidivism for offenders who have been convicted of murder (Gagnon 2015). Research shows that Canada’s rehabilitation focused criminal justice system has also worked with crimes that are not as severe as murder. Between 2010/2011 and 2013/2014, there was a 12% decrease in completed adult criminal court cases. Most cases in adult criminal court involve non-violent offenses (Maxwell 2013/2014). Similarly, in 2013, the police-reported crime rate was at it lowest since 1969 (Statistics Canada). The homicide rate is also declining, as in 2013, it represented less than 1% of all violent crime (Statistics Canada). Notably, probation was the most common sentence given in adult court cases and custody sentences were less than six months (Maxwell, 2013/2014). These types of sentences showcase the rehabilitation focused thinking of the Canadian criminal justice system and reinforce the impact and possible repercussions of Justin Bourque’s
Griffiths, C. T. (2007). Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer (3rd Edition ed.). Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
The aims of sentencing include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection. Punishment is used to punish the offender for their wrong conduct to an extent and in a way that is just in all circumstances and is intended to show public abhorrence from the offence. An example of a sentencing option that may be used to punish an offender includes imprisonment. A recent sentence imposed in the Tasmanian Supreme Court aimed at punishing an offender is the case of Michael Robert Keeling v State of Tasmania in which the judge needed to balance the need to punish the offender and the need to deter him and others from such conduct while keeping the best interests of the community in mind. Deterrent sentences are aimed at deterring not only the offender from further offences but also potential offenders. Specific deterrence is concerned with punishing an offender in the expectation they will not offend again whereas general deterrence is related to the possibility that people in general will be deterred from committing crime by the threat of punishment. An example of ...
As noted by Allen (2016), measures that are implemented outside the courtrooms, especially in a formal procedure, may lead to the provision of accurate as well as timely considerations for youth crime. As such, Canada is keen in the reinforcement of these regulations, as they determine both short and long-term judicial solutions. Most importantly, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada plays a major role in the implementation of extrajudicial measures as they may affirm to the occurrence of future issues. According to the Government of Canada (2015a), this calls for an attempt to channel out or divert such offenders from the mainstream justice system to a lesser formal way of dealing with the offenses. This paper attempts to investigate the appropriateness of the extrajudicial measures in Canada, and the reason behind why we established these provisions of the YCJA. It also illustrates an example of a Canadian case, which questions the extrajudicial measures. This discussion canvasses the main argument as for or against the extrajudicial measures in Canada through the adoption of recommendations to the Canadian Government about the proper situations in which such processes should be used.
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Welsh, B., & Irving, M. (2005). Crime and punishment in Canada, 1981-1999. Crime and Justice, 33, 247-294. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2063/stable/3488337?&Search=yes&searchText=canada&searchText=crime&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcrime%2Bin%2Bcanada%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=18&ttl=33894&returnArticleService=showFullText
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
The symbol of the Canadian judicial system is the balanced scales of justice. When a wrongful act is committed, the scales of justice are greatly misplaced and require a solution to counterbalance the crime and restore balance. Additionally, the scales represent the idea that law should be viewed objectively and the determination of innocence should be made without bias. The Canadian criminal justice system encapsulates the idea of the scale of justice, to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law. One of the most important aspects of this system is that an individual charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system has two prevailing methods involved in the process of dealing with crime: Retributive and restorative justice. This paper will analyze aspects of retributive justice and restorative justice, with reference to their respective philosophies, for the purpose of finding which is more effective at achieving justice and maintaining balance.
The second component of the criminal justice system is the court system. They court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to insure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences on guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed. Even though the jury makes the recommendation for the sentencing of the crime, the judge will follow pre-determined sentencing guidelines to make a final decision.
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
The criminal justice system is made up of many components that are constructed to ensure justice for victims of crimes, along with criminals. It is designed to guarantee that punishing those who are guilty will protect the innocent. Within the criminal justice system, there is a document that consists of all the jurisdictions of criminal law. This document is called the criminal code and entitles the offences that are acknowledged in the jurisdiction along with consequences that are enforced for these crimes. Throughout the years, there are offences constantly being added to the Criminal Code of Canada and many proposals being made by the Law Reform Commission of Canada.
According to David Garland, punishment is a legal process where violators of the criminal law are condemned and sanctioned with specified legal categories and procedures (Garland, 1990). There are different forms and types of punishment administered for various reasons and can either be a temporary or lifelong type of punishment. Punishment can be originated as a cause from parents or teachers with misbehaving children, in the workplace or from the judicial system in which crimes are committed against the law. The main aim of punishment is to demonstrate to the public, the victim and the offender that justice is to be done, to reduce criminal activities and to deter people from wanting to commit any form of crime against the law. In other words it is a tool used to eliminate the bad in society or to deter people from committing criminal activities.