Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Mandatory Minimum Sentences
3
Why do Minimum Sentences still exist?
Public Support
Did the Judicial Reforms Solve the Problem of Inconsistency?
- In 2005, more than half of Canadians strongly support mandatory sentencing
- Surveys found similar results in Australia and the U.S.
- Stronger support for mandatory sentencing legislation that permits a degree of judicial discretion
- Canadians appear aware of the dangers of absolute mandatory sentencing.
The 1987 sentencing reforms were intended to reduce variation in sentences and plea-bargaining.
Comparative study of cases conducted in 1981 and 1995, prove opposite has occurred.
- Politicians promote them as a way of deterring crime
- Allows politicians to campaign as "cracking down" on certain crimes
- Rarely challenged by Judges
Canada's Sentencing Guidelines
Similarly to the U.S., Canada created a Sentencing Commission in 1984 to review the country's sentencing law and policy
Unlike United States' Canada's crime prevention aims of deterrence and incarceration are considered but only within a framework of proportionality
History/Origins in the US
"the paramount principle governing the determination of a sentence is that the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence"
Bibliography
- 1790, first mandatory minimum, for piracy
- lull in use of such sentencing methods
- 1951 & 1956, mandatory minimum brought back for drug-related crimes
- 1970, Congress repealed all drug related mandatory minimum sentences
- Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
- 1987, the Sentencing Commission's federal sentencing guidelines took effect
Roberts, J. V., Crutcher, N., & Verbrugge, P. (2007). Public Attitudes to Sentencing in Canada: Exploring Recent Findings 1. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(1), 75-107.
Stith, K., & Cabranes, J. A. (1999). To Fear Judging No More: Recommendations for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 11(4), 187-193.
Bjerk, D. (2005). Making the Crime Fit the Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion under Mandatory Minimum Sentencing*. The Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 591-625.
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Discretion, the Safety Valve, and the Sentencing Guidelines Comment
Oliss, Philip
Lacasse, C., & Payne, A. (1999). Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Do Defendants Bargain in the Shadow of the Judge?*. The Journal of Law and Economics, 42(S1), 245-270.
Fish, M. J. (2008). An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28(1), 57-71.
Doop, A. N., & Cesaroni, C. (2001). The political attractiveness of mandatory minimum sentences [Abstract].
Societal sentiments that birthed mandatory sentences:
- Uneasiness with authoritative discretion
- commitment to the ideal of rationality
- faith in bureaucratic administration