Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:34 am
Time: 1:34 am
Results for sentencing (canada)
4 results foundAuthor: Vancouver (Canada) Police Department. Planning, Research & Audit Section Title: Assessing Sentencing Across Criminal Careers: An Examination of VPD's Chronic Offenders Summary: This report examines the sentencing patterns of a sample of offenders being monitored by the Vancouver Police Department’s (VPD) Chronic Offenders Program (COP), and further draws attention to the issues surrounding the most prolific offenders in Vancouver by highlighting three case studies. This report analyzes for the first time, the sentences handed down to a sample of the most chronic offenders over the course of their criminal careers. The vast majority of Canadians assume that the more frequently an offender is convicted, the longer the sentence should be, but this does not generally appear to be the case. In fact, evidence shows that after 30 or more convictions the sentence actually decreases. Details: Vancouver, BC: Vancouver Police Department, 2008. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2011 at: http://vancouver.ca/police/media/2008/ChronicsSentencing.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Canada URL: http://vancouver.ca/police/media/2008/ChronicsSentencing.pdf Shelf Number: 120700 Keywords: Career CriminalsChronic OffendersSentencing (Canada) |
Author: Doob, Anthony N. Title: Concern with Leniency: An Examination of Sentencing Patterns in British Columbia Summary: There is no question that the topic of sentencing is controversial in Canada, generally, and in British Columbia in particular. As just one illustration of this issue, 69% of all Canadians and 74% of British Columbians indicated that they believed that sentences in criminal matters are too lenient. Such responses are best thought of as ‘beliefs’ since nobody in Canada has completely adequate data on which to evaluate such a statement since completely adequate data on this issue do not exist. The difference between there being some sentences that are demonstrably wrong and sentences generally being too lenient is, of course, important. ‘Fixing’ incorrect sentences is a routine activity of Courts of Appeal. It is most likely that if asked about evidence that sentences were too lenient, people would, at best, give a few examples of apparently lenient sentences rather than systematic data about sentencing patterns. British Columbians may believe sentences are too lenient in part because they, like most Canadians, undoubtedly believe that if the severity of sentences was ‘turned up’, rates of crime would decrease. Compared to the rest of Canada, British Columbia has a relatively high crime rate as measured by crimes reported to the police. However, it is important to note that victimization is not, uniformly, associated with the view that sentences are too lenient. Indeed, in British Columbia those who were victimized in the 12 months prior to being asked their views on the severity of sentences were less likely to say that sentences were too lenient than were those who had not been victimized. Nevertheless, British Columbians are more likely than people in other regions to hold relatively poor views of the criminal courts. However, British Columbians also appear less favourable about other criminal justice institutions - prisons and parole, and the police. It is possible that the special concern that British Columbians have about sentences reflects deeper distrust, in British Columbia than elsewhere in Canada, in the effects of public institutions. One likely explanation for people’s views that sentences are too lenient is that they may believe that judges, at sentencing, could reduce crime if they would only hand down harsher sentences. But there are other reasons. Given that close to three-quarters of Canadians think that sentences are too lenient, this view is seldom challenged. Indeed, in British Columbia, a statement in the Speech from the Throne in February 2008 may easily have been interpreted by the public as suggesting that sentences across all offence categories are more lenient in British Columbia than in other parts of Canada. Publicly available data (from Statistics Canada) certainly support the actual statement that appeared in the Throne Speech. However, if one looks at these data in detail – across all categories of offences – the measures of severity of sentences do not show such a consistent picture. More importantly, the measures that most people may think of when they think about sentence severity do not give an adequate picture of the complexity of the problem. We need to understand the nature of sentences being handed down before we can evaluate their severity. There is no doubt that there is what might be called ‘unexplained’ variation in sentences across judges, court locations, and provinces and territories. Part of the reason for this variability is that the sentencing structure contained in Canada’s Criminal Code does not lay out specific sentences that are appropriate for individual cases. Hence individual judges, interpreting the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, might well hand down different patterns of sentences. But there is another important consideration. People often talk about ‘short’ and ‘long’ sentences as if the only relevant dimension of sentences is the average (median or mean) length of a prison sentence that is imposed. It is not that simple. To illustrate the inadequacy of the ‘average length of a prison sentence’ as a measure of sentence severity, one could look at some Statistics Canada data tables presenting the median and mean length of prison sentences for all offences imposed in 2003. These measures were almost identical for British Columbia and for Canada as a whole. One might conclude, on the basis of these comparisons, that sentencing in British Columbia and in Canada, more generally, was of equal severity. However, approximately 40% of cases in British Columbia resulted in a prison sentence as compared to about 35% of cases in all of Canada. Is British Columbia harsher than the rest of Canada? Looking at the proportion of cases with a finding of guilt resulting in a prison sentence, one would easily arrive at this conclusion. Looking at the average length of these prison sentences, one would not. The problem of ‘scaling’ the severity of sentences becomes even more salient when these two indicators – prison sentence length and percent receiving a prison sentence – directly conflict with one another. Take for example, the offence category of “uttering threats.” Statistics Canada reports that in 2003, the average (median and mean) prison sentences in British Columbia were shorter than for Canada as a whole. The mean prison sentence in Canada was reported to be 83 days, whereas for British Columbia it was 61 days. One could easily conclude, therefore, that prison sentences were ‘shorter’ in British Columbia and that sentences for this offence were more lenient in British Columbia than in Canada as a whole. But in British Columbia, 41% of the cases of ‘uttering threats’ resulted in a prison sentence compared to 35.5% of cases in Canada as a whole. What may be happening in British Columbia, therefore, is that cases of uttering threats are receiving relatively short prison sentences that, elsewhere in Canada, would have received a non-custodial sentence. By averaging in a number of relatively short sentences for British Columbia that are not part of the calculation elsewhere in Canada, British Columbia’s average prison sentence decreases because more people convicted of this offence are being sent to prison. We strongly believe that what is needed to compare sentencing patterns across jurisdictions is a comprehensive picture that does not reduce overall sentencing in a jurisdiction to a single number. Hence we have suggested that there be multiple measures of sentencing patterns and that one should look at all available categories of offences. It is natural – and not necessarily inappropriate – to find that there is some variation in sentencing across jurisdictions. After all, under our current law, judges have to decide, within the context of their own jurisdictions, how serious offences are, and what the goals of sentencing should be in determining the sentence. Notwithstanding the ease with which sentences can be described by the average length of a prison sentence, we conclude that these measures (mean or median sentence) have too high a probability of failing to accurately describe sentencing to justify their use. We demonstrated in the full report, for example, that one could have a situation in which five jurisdictions all had the same mean and median sentences for a particular offence category, but the proportion of those found guilty who were given harsh sentences could simultaneously vary, in our hypothetical example, from 1% of those found guilty to 35% of those found guilty. If 1% of all guilty findings in a jurisdiction were to result in a penitentiary sentence and 35% of all guilty findings in another resulted in a penitentiary sentence, we argue that a description of the mean and median sentences of these two jurisdictions as being identical is not terribly helpful, nor descriptive. In order to understand variation in sentencing across Canada, we concluded that it was important to look at data in as much detail as possible. First of all, this meant looking at individual offence groupings as well as comparisons between British Columbia and individual provinces, rather than ‘Canada’ as a single unit. Second, it meant using multiple measures of sentence severity that acknowledge that the distribution of sentences can vary in a number of different ways. The core of our analysis, therefore, presents comparisons between British Columbia and other individual provinces. For various reasons described in the full report, we felt that comparisons between British Columbia, on the one hand and the three territories, Manitoba, and Quebec, on the other hand, should not be made. The most compelling reason for not including the territories in our analysis is their small sample sizes. Comparisons with Manitoba and Quebec were excluded because of the (in)completeness of the data from these two jurisdictions. Hence we present comparisons of British Columbia with each of the remaining 7 provinces. We present five inter-related measures of sentence severity for each offence grouping: the percent of all guilty findings resulting in a prison sentence; the percent of prison sentences that are greater than 3 months in length; the percent of prison sentences that are greater than 6 months in length; the percent of all guilty findings that resulted in a prison sentence of greater than 3 months in length; and the percent of all guilty findings that resulted in a prison sentence of greater than 6 months in length. Details: Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology; Ottawa: Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, 2008. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2011 at: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/reports/pdf/ConcernLeniency.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Canada URL: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/reports/pdf/ConcernLeniency.pdf Shelf Number: 122766 Keywords: PunishmentSentencing (Canada)Sentencing Disparities |
Author: Pivot Legal Society Title: Throwing Away the Keys: The human and social cost of mandatory minimum sentences Summary: Crime rates in Canada are at their lowest point since 1972, yet last year Canada’s federal government introduced sweeping legislative reforms to our criminal justice system. The stated goal of these expansive and expensive measures is to increase the safety and security of Canadians by getting “tough on crime” and holding offenders accountable. The Safe Streets and Communities Act (SSCA), alternately known as Bill C-10 and the “Omnibus Crime Bill,” was passed by Parliament on March 12, 2012. When the SSCA was debated in Parliament, Canadians were told that many provisions of the Act, including the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for a number of drug offences, would target “serious organized drug crime” rather than people struggling with drug dependence. Many well-respected commentators, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the Assembly of First Nations have argued, however, that these amendments will affect a spectrum of drug offenders, including people involved in the sale and/or production of illicit substances as a result of their struggle with drug dependence. Pivot Legal Society undertook this research in order to assess the potential scope and nature of the effects of the Safe Streets and Communities Act on low-income drug users. We also sought to examine whether new criminal law provisions were likely to raise constitutional issues, particularly when applied to members of Charter-protected groups, such as Aboriginal people and people with disabilities (including drug dependence). Our conclusion is that several provisions of the SSCA, including mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offences, are unlikely to achieve their stated goals of deterrence and disruption of organized crime. Our findings also suggest that these “tough on crime” measures will be costly, both economically and socially, and will have disproportionate negative effects for people living with drug dependence, Aboriginal people, and youth in or leaving the foster care system. Finally, we make the argument that the application of a number of provisions of the SSCA may result in violations of the Charter rights of low-income drug users and other protected groups and may therefore be vulnerable to constitutional challenge. Details: Vancouver, BC: Pivot Legal Society, 2013. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/pages/395/attachments/original/1372448744/Final_ThrowingAway_lo-res_-_v2.pdf?1372448744 Year: 2013 Country: Canada URL: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/pages/395/attachments/original/1372448744/Final_ThrowingAway_lo-res_-_v2.pdf?1372448744 Shelf Number: 129530 Keywords: Mandatory Minimum SentencesPunishmentSentencing (Canada) |
Author: Plecas, Darryl Title: Do Judges take Prior Record into Consideration? An Analysis of the Sentencing of Repeat Offenders in British Columbia Summary: A fundamental principle in nearly every common-law jurisdiction, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, is that an offender's prior record should play a central role in sentencing. In fact, the importance of previous criminal history should only be surpassed by the seriousness of offence committed (Roberts, 1997; Ulmer, 1997; Vigorita, 2001). In Canada, the public has held the views that repeat offenders should be held more accountable for their offenses and should receive a harsher penalty (Roberts, 2008). This perspective is based on the notion that deliberate and persistent criminal activity indicates that the offender is a chronic and significant risk to society who consistently demonstrates a disregard for the rules and laws of society and its citizens. As Ruby et al. (2004: 311) stated, a "criminal record may show that the offender is committed to a criminal way of life and therefore a danger to society". Indeed, many legislators and courts have stated that an offender's second offence must be considered more serious than their first, and leniency should not be given to offenders with lengthy criminal histories (Ulmer and Kramer, 1996; Roberts, 2008). Although criminologists have questioned the general deterrent effect of custodial sentences for decades, several authors have pointed out its strong specific deterrent effect, especially with dangerous and repeat offenders (Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 1999; Weinrath and Gartrell, 2001). Indeed, while looking at the overall effect of prison sentences on recidivism, Gendreau et al. (1999) maintained that the most important objective of prisons should be the targeted incapacitation of chronic and high-risk offenders. In British Columbia, even a cursory review of sentencing practices suggests that prior criminal record has played little or no role in the sentencing decision of judges. To illustrate this point, data collected from police records in PRIME-BC was analyzed to examine the likelihood of being sentenced to a term in prison and the sentence length for offenders found guilty of either assault or break and enter. While it is apparent that judges in British Columbia treat first time offenders somewhat more leniently than repeat offenders, the data presented in this article clearly indicates that judges have not been taking prior record into consideration when sentencing repeat offenders. Details: Abbotsford, BC: University of the Fraser Valley, Centre for Public Safety & Criminal Justice Research, 2012. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/criminology/Do+Judges+Consider+Prior+Record.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/criminology/Do+Judges+Consider+Prior+Record.pdf Shelf Number: 131649 Keywords: JudgesRepeat Offenders Sentencing (Canada) |