Community-Based Sanctions
| Author | Dawn North |
| Pages | 48-70 |
48
CHAPTER THREE
Community-Based Sanctions
Dawn North*
Penal policy can both reect and inuence social values; either way it is
clear that our views on sentencing in Canada have evolved. We no longer
allow capital or corporal punishment, nor does the law permit hard labour
as a condition of connement. Our current sentencing policies frame
incarceration as a sanction of last resort and, in most cases, explicitly dir-
ect judges to consider the use of alternatives to imprisonment. Notwith-
standing these developments, nearly four out of ten adults sentenced
in – received an institutional disposition, many of which were
relatively short sentences imposed for non-violent oences. For those
* My thanks to Tony Doob and Cheryl Webster for comments on an earlier draft.
Criminal Code, RSC , c C-, s .(e) [Criminal Code].
In –, the median institutional sentence for adults was thirty days; see Zoran
Miladinovic, “Adult Criminal and Youth Court Statistics in Canada, /” Juristat,
Statistics Canada Catalogue no -–X ( January ), online: www.statcan.
gc.ca/n/pub/--x//article/-eng.htm. In an analysis of single-
charge sentences, Marinos estimated that almost half (%) of prison sentences of
thirty days or less involved administration of justice oences (e.g., failing to comply
with a bail or probation order). Voula Marinos, “The Meaning of ‘Short’ Sentences of
Imprisonment and Oences Against the Administration of Justice: A Perspective from
the Court” () Canadian Journal of Law & Society at .
Community-Based Sanctions | 49
interested in expanding the use of community-based options, this sug-
gests there may be room to grow.
Community-based sanctions provide exibility but can also intro-
duce theoretical, operational, and normative challenges. How do we
balance the concepts of punishment with rehabilitation or restoration,
especially when dealing with disadvantaged, marginalized, or Indigen-
ous oenders? How should we deal with otherwise law-abiding oend-
ers who have committed serious oences? How should we respond to
chronic petty oenders who repeatedly fail to comply with conditions
attached to community-based orders? In the context of sentencing,
what does “justice” look like?
Any eort to answer these questions must surely start with the rec-
ognition that while headlines tend to focus on serious violent crimes,
most sentencing decisions relate to summary matters, and many oend-
ers come from social environments characterized by poverty, home-
lessness, substance abuse, or mental illness. Contemporary Canadian
sentencing practice operates increasingly within a framework that goes
beyond the codied principles of proportionality, parity, and restraint,
particularly given the Supreme Court of Canada’s continuing direction
to sentencing judges that they are to consider notions of “individual-
ized proportionality” (see Chapter ).
is chapter will discuss community-based sanctions within these
contexts. In doing so, it will () explore the historical development of
non-institutional sanctions; () review existing sentencing options; ()
discuss theoretical and operational challenges to the use of community-
See, for instance, Julian V Roberts & David P Cole, eds, Making Sense of Sentencing
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, ) ch [Roberts & Cole, Making Sense of
Sentencing].
Speaking of his experiences on the Ontario Court of Justice, one judge (now on the
Ontario Court of Appeal) said: “I see these people in their worst moments, sometimes
shackled, but always bowed and humiliated and hurting. Often sick, always in need. It is
impossible not to be aected by this. One would have to be blind not to see the divers-
ity of our communities, and heartless not to crave solutions to inequality and excessive
use of the criminal law.” Canada, Department of Justice, “The Honourable Justice David
M. Paciocco’s Questionnaire [for Judicial Appointment],” online: www.canada.ca/en/
department-justice/news///the_honourable_usticedavidmpacioccos
questionnaire.html.
To continue reading
Request your trial