Sentencing
Judicial determination of a legal sanction upon a person convicted of an offence
3 types of Canadian courts
- Provincial
- Federal
- Military
Aboriginal overrepresentation
- Refers to disproportionate number of aboriginals involved in the criminal justice system
- 3% Canadian population but 18% of adults admitted into remand
Aboriginal courts
- Established for special consideration could be given to background factors of aboriginal offenders
- One goal to reduce aboriginal overrepresentation
Goals of sentencing
- Specific deterrence (already offenders)
- General deterrence (potential offenders)
- Denounce unlawful conduct
- Separate offenders from society
- Assist in rehabilitating offenders
- Provide reparations for harm done
- Promote responsibility in offenders
Principles in sentencing
- Sentence must be proportionate to gravity of offence
- Sentence must be proportionate to responsibility of offender
- Sentence should not deprive offender of liberty if at all possible
Judges must
- Consider aggravating and mitigating factors
- Use comparable sentences for similar offenders commiting similar crimes
- Use alternatives to incarcerate if at all possible
Sentencing options
- Absolute discharge
- Reparation
- Fines
- Community service
- Conditional sentences
- Imprisonment
Are sentencing options effective?
Research shows that punishment based sentences does not reduce the probability of reoffending
Effect of punishment
- Community based sanctions resulted in increased recidivism rates
- Incarceration resulted in increased recidivism rates
Death penalty
- Canada eliminated DP in 1976, 1998 for military offences
- 38 states permit the DP
Arguments against the death penalty
- Does not act as deterrent
- Expensive
- Biased
- Handed down to the innocent
Sentencing disparity
Variation in sentencing patterns due to the influence of factors that are not leagally relevant to the case
Unwarrented sentencing disparity
- Results from reliance on extra-legal factors
- Systemic factors (how lenient judges believe sentence should be)
- Unsystemic factors (mood of judge on particular day)
Studying sentencing disparity
- Simulation studies
- Official sentencing statistics
- Both methods clearly shows that sentencing disparity exists
Reducing sentencing disparity
Use sentencing guidelines
Are the goals of sentencing achieved
- Ongoing debate about deterrence and rehabilitation
- Research does not support the effectiveness of get tough strategies to reduce crime
- Correctional interventions that are based on core correctional principles show more promise
Public’s attitude towards sentencing
- Generally feel that offenders are treated more leniently
- Generally doesn’t have a lot of conifidence in our criminal justice system
- Generally support a range of alternative sentencing practices
Principles of effective correctional intervention
- Risk principle
- Need principle
- Responsivity principle
Risk principle of effective correctional intervention
- Criminal risk can be predicted
- Higher levels of service should be provided to higher risk cases
Need principle of effective correctional intervention
- Should target criminogenic needs
- Not non-criminogenic needs
Responsovity principle of effective correctional intervetion
- Delivering treatment programs in a style and mode that is matched to the ability and learning style of the offender
- Match service to general responsivity and specific responsivity
Parole involves
- Conditional release into community
- Rehabilitation
- High degree of community supervision
- Return to prison if conditions not met
Types of parole
- Temporary absence
- Day parole
- Full parole
- Statutory release
-
Lecture 131
-
Lecture 2 part 120
-
Lecture 2 part 218
-
Lecture 3 part 123
-
Lecture 3 part 231
-
Lecture 4 part 116
-
Lecture 4 part 213
-
Lecture 5 part 125
-
Lecture 5 part 234
-
Lecture 5 part 39
-
Lecture 6 part 129
-
Lecture 6 part 220
-
Lecture 7 part 119
-
Lecture 7 part 224
-
Lecture 828
-
Lecture 922
-
Lecture 10 part 116
-
Lecture 10 part 219
