1. Sentencing and Parole in Canada
Chapter 9
Sentencing and Parole in Canada
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-1

2. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Learning Objectives
The Canadian court system
Aboriginal overrepresentation
Purposes and principles of sentencing
Sentencing options
Sentencing disparity
Effective correctional intervention
Parole decision making
Public attitudes towards the justice system
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-2

3. Hierarchy of Canadian Courts
Courts in Canada are divided into provincial/territorial courts and federal courts
Courts are also organized into a hierarchy with courts lower in the hierarchy abiding by the decisions of courts at higher levels
The Supreme Court of Canada is the final court of appeal
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-3

4. The Canadian Court System
Source: Department of Justice, 2010
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-4

5. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Aboriginal Courts
Aboriginal courts also exist within the court structure
Established so that special consideration could be given to the adverse background conditions of Aboriginal offenders
One of the goals of these courts is to reduce Aboriginal overrepresentation in the criminal justice system
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-5

6. Aboriginal Overrepresentation
Refers to the disproportionate number of Aboriginals involved in the criminal justice system
Aboriginals make up approximately 3% of the Canadian population, but account for 17% of adults admitted into remand
The problem is more severe in the Prairie provinces
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-6

7. Explanations for Aboriginal Overrepresentation
There are several possible explanations:
A higher Aboriginal crime rate
The commission by Aboriginal people of more serious crimes
Criminal justice practices that penalize Aboriginal people (e.g., fine defaults)
Overt or systemic racism
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-7

8. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Sentencing in Canada
Sentencing is defined as the judicial determination of a legal sanction upon a person convicted of an offence (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 1997)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-8

9. The Purposes of Sentencing
Sentences are meant to accomplish any number of a variety of goals:
Specific deterrence
General deterrence
Denunciation
Incapacitation
Reparation
Rehabilitation
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-9

10. The Principles of Sentencing
The fundamental principle of sentencing states that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-10

11. Additional Principles
Judges must also:
Consider aggravating and mitigating factors
Use comparable sentences for similar offenders committing similar crimes
Use alternatives to incarceration if at all possible
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-11

12. Sentencing Options in Canada
Absolute or conditional discharge
Probation
Restitution
Fines and community service
Conditional sentence
Imprisonment
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-12

13. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Dangerous Offenders
A dangerous offender application can be made for any offender convicted of a serious personal injury offence who constitutes a danger to others
Requires a determination of dangerousness
Can result in a term of indefinite imprisonment
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-13

14. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Long Term Offenders
The long term offender designation is relatively new to Canada
Must meet several criteria:
Sentence of 2+ years is appropriate
Risk of re-offending
Possibility of eventual control of risk
Receives a sentence of at least 2 years followed by a period of supervision
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-14

15. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Sentencing Disparity
Sentencing disparity refers to variations in sentences handed down by different judges (or the same judge on different occasions) for similar offenders committing similar offences (McFatter, 1986)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-15

16. Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity
Unwarranted sentencing disparity results from a reliance on extra-legal (i.e., legally irrelevant) factors
These factors can be categorized as:
Systematic factors (e.g., how lenient judges believe sentences should be)
Unsystematic factors (e.g., the mood of the judge on any particular day)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-16

17. Studying Sentencing Disparity
Sentencing disparity is typically studied in one of two ways:
Simulation studies
Official sentencing statistics
Using either method it is clear that sentencing disparity exists in Canada (Birkenmayer & Roberts, 1997; Palys & Divorski, 1986)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-17

18. Reducing Sentencing Disparity
One way of reducing sentencing disparity is to use sentencing guidelines
However, sentencing guidelines in Canada are very broad (Roberts, 1991) and may not significantly reduce sentencing disparity
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-18

19. Are the Goals of Sentencing Achieved?
Ongoing debate about deterrence and rehabilitation
Many researchers do not believe that get-tough strategies reduce crime
However, certain rehabilitative efforts do appear to reduce re-offending
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-19

20. The Effect of Punishment
Gendreau et al. (2001) examined recidivism rates for community-based sanctions and prison sentences
Community-based sanctions (with the exception of fines and restitution) resulted in increased recidivism rates
Incarceration resulted in increased recidivism rates (with longer incarceration resulting in higher rates)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-20

21. What Works in Offender Treatment?
Canadian researchers have led the way in establishing principles of effective correctional intervention (Andrews & Bonta, 2006)
Correctional interventions that incorporate these principles have been shown to reduce recidivism rates (Andrews et al., 1990)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-21

22. Principles of Effective Correctional Intervention
Important principles include:
Need principle – effective intervention targets criminogenic needs
Risk principle – effective intervention targets high-risk offenders
Responsivity principle – effective intervention matches the general learning styles and characteristics of offenders
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-22

23. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Parole in Canada
Parole involves:
Conditional release into community
Rehabilitation
A high degree of supervision
Return to prison if conditions are breached
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-23

24. Myths Concerning Parole
Parole reduces sentence time
Parole is automatically granted when inmates become eligible
Parole is granted if remorse is shown
Offenders released on parole frequently re-offend
Victims do not play a role in parole decisions
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-24

25. Parole Decision Making
Decisions are made by members of Canada’s National Parole Board (NPB)
Offenders become eligible for parole after serving the first third, or the first seven years, of their sentence
A formal hearing takes place between the offender and the NPB and a formal risk assessment is conducted
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-25

26. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Risk Assessment
This risk assessment includes an examination of:
Criminal history
Mental status
Performance on earlier releases
Information from victims
Institutional behaviour
Feasibility of release plans, etc.
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-26

27. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Types of Parole
Temporary absence
Day parole
Full parole
Statutory release
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-27

28. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Conditions of Parole
Various conditions of parole must be met or the offender may go back to prison
Examples include:
Abstain from drugs and alcohol
Remain in Canada
Obey the law and keep the peace
Do not own or possess any weapons
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-28

29. The Effectiveness of Parole
The NPB (2009) indicates that offenders let out on parole are less likely to breach conditions or commit new offences compared to offenders let out on statutory release
Even offenders let out on statutory release are unlikely to commit further crimes
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-29

30. Public Attitudes Towards the Criminal Justice System
There are three methods that are commonly used to study public attitudes towards the criminal justice system:
Simulation studies
Focus groups
Public opinion polls (most common)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-30

31. Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
Common Attitudes
Results of public opinion polls indicate that:
Canadians view the criminal justice system in a relatively positive light (especially the police)
Canadians believe that offenders are treated too leniently
Canadians support alternatives to sentencing under certain conditions
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-31

32. Factors That Influence Public Attitudes
Discrepancy between attitudes and reality (e.g., with respect to lenient treatment) due to an inadequate understanding of the criminal justice system
According to Sprott and Doob (1997), this discrepancy is largely the result of biased media portrayals of the criminal justice system
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.
9-32