Justice Michael Moldaver, Supreme Court of Canada
’    the product of decades of legislative
innovation and augmentation. Except in the case of mandatory min-
imum provisions, sentencing is now a matter of judicial discretion
guided by the purposes, principles, and objectives set out in the Criminal
Code, sections –.. Among the principles of sentencing referred
to in these provisions, the principle of proportionality is identied as
fundamental: a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the
oence and the degree of responsibility of the oender. e discretion
to craft highly individualized sentences is a key feature of the Canadian
approach to sentencing. Section  refers to a number of sentencing
objectives, some of which include deterrence, denunciation, separation
of oenders from society where necessary, and rehabilitation. Finally,
among other things, section . sets out several aggravating and miti-
gating features that a court may consider in crafting a just sentence.
at said, as this collection of essays demonstrates, it would be
wrong to conclude that the various principles and objectives of sen-
tencing are as easy to apply as they are to state. It has been said time
and again that sentencing is one of the most dicult tasks judges face.
I can attest to this. After almost thirty years as a judge, I nd that sen-
tencing does not get any easier. Sentencing requires striking a delicate
balance between numerous case-specic considerations: considerations

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT