Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
11 pros and cons of mandatory minimums
11 pros and cons of mandatory minimums
Cons of mandatory sentencing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 11 pros and cons of mandatory minimums
In Canada, over two-dozen offences in the Criminal Code carry mandatory minimum sentences. These offences include first and second-degree murder, a series of firearm-related offences, impaired driving and related offences, high treason, and gambling offences (Gabor and Crutcher 2001). Although there are so many crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences, they are not the best way to reduce crime in Canada.
Mandatory minimum sentences make up a large proportion of the criminal penalties in Canada; yet, there is little reliable evidence showing that variations in the severity of punishment have a substantial deterrent effect (Durlauf, Steven N., Nagin, and Daniel S. 2011). Mandatory minimum sentences also create harsher penalties for crimes that don’t deserve it, and don’t take into account the scenario in which these crimes were committed (Gabor, Thomas 2001). For example, the inflexibilities for crimes such as murder in certain contexts. An instance such as a spouse kills her tormentor in a premeditated fashion. Crimes like this are almost always prompted by severe treats to the spouse’s life, or the life of their children (Gabor, Thomas 2001).
…show more content…
Sentencing is an extremely individualized basis, which should be treated as such (Pomerance, Renee M, 2013). The causes and effects of each individual situation cannot possibly be summed up into one punishment. Judges are extremely good at their job, and should be able to supply punishments that they believe are fair and just for each individual incident. Canada does not need so many mandatory minimum sentences, and should be allowing the judges to do their job, by using their own discretion. By allowing the judges to think for themselves, and use past judgements on certain cases, Canada will have a much more fair and democratic criminal justice program. Therefore, causing the crime rates to eventually
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
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
Canada is a country where rehabilitation has been a formal part of sentencing and correctional policies for an extended period of time (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Furthermore, a group of Canadian researchers have examined the methodology and effectiveness of rehabilitation, and are principal figures in the correctional rehabilitation field (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). However, despite rehabilitation being a central aspect of Canadian identity, there has been a shift in the justice system’s objectives. The rise of the Conservative government and their omnibus bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act, has created a move towards retribution. Bill C-10 was passed on March 12, 2012 (Government of Canada, 2013) and was a proposal to make fundamental changes to almost every component of Canada’s criminal justice system. Law changes included new and increased mandatory minimum sentencin...
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.
In conclusion, I believe that capital punishment should never be reinstated in Canada. It is a cruel and unjust punishment, where it violates the rights of life and makes amend within the world and may lead to an innocent person executed with the suspect untouched. Also, why ruin a good thing where Canada’s murder/violent crime rate is slowly decreasing within the years because of the abolishment of the death sentence? With the reasons stated above, as well with the fact that the cost of capital punishment is higher and that it is rejected and shunned upon within many religions such as Catholic and Protestant, I think that capital punishment is something that should never even be considered to be reinstated as it is unnecessary and unjust.
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.
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.
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
In my eyes there are three main questions to be asked about mandatory minimum sentencing: For one, are mandatory minimum sentences fair? I do not mean this in the “Johnny got two cookies and I only got one” type of fair. When referring to fair, I am asking if we are giving our country’s judicial system the freedom to exercise all of their privileges and powers. Also, if compared to less heinous and more heinous crimes, are the mandatory minimums surrounding drug offences unjustly strict? The second question: What is the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on the criminal justice system and jails as a whole? Are other problems being created by mandatory minimums? Finally, I’d like to know what alternatives to mandatory minimums exist, and if they are more or less effective. It is very important to be able to look at angles of this issue and reassess our approach. It would make a lot of sense to change how criminal justice system if it is using outdated and ineffective
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
During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...
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.
Mandatory sentencing is where someone who has been convicted of a crime must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. In the situation where the crime that was committed is subject to mandatory sentencing, the judge has very little choice when deciding the punishment.
Wrongdoing in Canada is genuinely low because of imprisonment and legitimate law authorization, while other nations that do have the death penalty have a higher crime rate. We do not have to utilize the strategy for retribution to punish people, as Ghandi once stated an eye for an eye will make the entire world blind. This essentially implies that if we execute individuals as a method for retribution there would be nobody left. For instance if a man is convicted carrying out a crime in Canada he would be sentenced imprisonment rather than a death penalty, since it has been abolished in Canada. This is a viable discipline in light of the fact that the suspect would be sentenced for his or her existence with no parole.This punishment will be just to all and would not require the life of the suspect. Capital punishment at times could be a cruel punishment, the method of execution vary from fire squad to electrocution which is ethically wrong. The alternate methods avoid these situation so that the suspect does not have to face cruel unethical
Mandatory minimum sentences have been considered the trademark for the tough on crime agenda of the Conservative government between 2006 and 2015. Mandatory minimum sentences were set out to ensure that the severity of the sentence matches the severity of the crime (Mallea, 2010). This was a “one sizes fits all” approach that ensured that every offender received a mandatory minimum sentences for offences that provoke the most societal fear (Comack, Burgher & Fabre, 2015). As such, mandatory minimum sentences have directly influenced an individual’s sentence length as it has reduced the chance of any judge discretion to a particular case. The majority of mandatory minimums were introduced between 2005-2015 (Department of Justice, 2015). The mandatory minimum laws were implemented to provide harsher minimum penalties as well as new frameworks for crimes related to drug offences, firearm offences and sexual offences. Mandatory minimum sentence were enacted for crimes related to treason, first and second-degree murder, in which the offenders will serve 25 years in prison (Allen, 2017). In 2013, there were 4,800 offenders serving life sentences in Canada (Chang, 2015). The second category is composed of 16 offences which all include the use or possession of a firearm.