Sentencing

• Author: Hy Bloom, Richard D Schneider
• Pages: 317-324

317

chapter ten

Sentencing

A. SENTENCING

A just sentence must f‌it the offender as well as the offence. “The determ in-

ation of a just and appropriate sentence is a delicate art which attempts to

balance carefully t he societal goals of sentencing agai nst the moral blame-

worthiness of the offender and the ci rcumstances of the offence, while at

all times tak ing into account the needs and current conditions of and in the

community.”1

It is assumed that people understand that rehabilitat ion and supervision

are more important than punish ment when sentencing the mentally i ll.2 Re-

habilitation is crucial to t he protection of the public as it aids the prevention

of reoffendi ng.3 By treating the root cause of the cr iminality t he probability

of reoffendi ng is reduced.

Mental disorder may have been operative in the commission of the of-

fence, but not to an extent suff‌icient to have an impact upon the verdict, or

the accused may have quite rationally elected not to raise t he issue during

the course of the trial not withstanding the potential success of the defence.

The court must nevert heless take into consideration evidence of mental

disorder during the sentencing process.

B. PARTICULAR SENTENCING CONSIDER ATIONS

Generally, mental disorder is seen as a factor in mitigation for the following

reasons:

1 R v CAM, [1996] 1 SCR 500 at para 91, La mer CJC.

2 R v Edmunds, [2012] NJ No 177 (CA) [Edmunds].

3 R v Branton, [2012] NJ No 474 (Prov Ct) [Branton].