Chapter 8 Chapter Summary

This chapter sheds light on the difficulties that the criminal justice system encounters when attempting to reconcile the sometimesconflicting goals of achieving public safety and holding offenders accountable when sentencing. As indicated in past chapters, not very many of us have had direct experiences with the criminal justice system—especially the courtrooms—so our information about the sentencing process is somewhat limited (and usually shaped by the media). Sentencing is a complex process that is guided by the Charter, the Criminal Code, and a number of sentencing principles.

Sentencing in Canada is intended to be just, fair, unbiased, and in the interests of increasing public safety. While the public is usually influenced by penal populism and want tough sentences for violent offenders, most judges are reticent to impose restrictive options on offenders. A judge’s job is not only stressful and open to public scrutiny, but it involves considerable discretion when sentencing. As indicated, sentencing practices should be rational and guided by research and sentencing itself should be based on the circumstances of the offenders and the crime. However, there are extra-legal factors (e.g., geography, race, class, gender, economic status, membership in a marginalized group) that may affect sentencing practices in Canada. These factors warrant further examination.

The chapter examines strong arguments for less restrictive options to be utilized whenever possible and to reserve the harsher sentences for serious and violent offenders. Research has suggested that the certainty and swiftness of a punishment is more effective than severity. (This may have something to do with differences in interprovincial sentencing). Although getting tough on offenders is popular with the public, it is ineffective criminal justice practice. In order to make the best sentencing decisions, judges in Canada should move towards individualized justice.