Sentencing Options and Sentencing Trends

• Author: Andrew A Reid
• Pages: 26-47



CHAPTER TWO

Sentencing Options and Sentencing

Trends

Andrew A Reid

At sentencing, judges may choose from a wide array of sentencing

options. e alternatives include discharges, a variety of pecuniary

penalties, dierent forms of supervision in the community, and sev-

eral forms of imprisonment. Although legislation places some limita-

tions on the manner in which options may be applied, judges exercise

considerable discretion when determining sentence. Sanctions may be

applied alone or may be combined. Minimum punishments are pre-

scribed for relatively few oences, and maximum penalties exceed actual

sentencing outcomes in almost all cases. is chapter documents the

 Section .() of the Criminal Code, RSC , c C- [Criminal Code], recognizes

the presence of degrees of punishment and arms that “[w]here an enactment pre-

scribes dierent degrees or kinds of punishment in respect of an oence, the punish-

ment to be imposed is, subject to the limitations prescribed in the enactment, in the

discretion of the court that convicts a person who commits the oence.”

 Current sentencing options are identif‌ied in the Criminal Code, ss – and s .

 Section .() of the Criminal Code states that “[w]here an enactment prescribes a

punishment in respect of an oence, the punishment to be imposed is, subject to the

limitations prescribed in the enactment, in the discretion of the court that convicts a

person who commits the oence, but no punishment is a minimum punishment unless

it is declared to be a minimum punishment.”

Sentencing Options and Sentencing Trends | 

sentencing options and recent sentencing trends in Canada. e goal is

to provide a snapshot of current sentencing outcomes and to highlight

recent changes. Such a task, however, poses considerable challenges.

A. THE CHALLENGES OF DOCUMENTING SENTENCING OPTIONS

AND TRENDS

First, the complexity of the sentencing process hinders the ability to

accurately report data. As noted by Roberts and Birkenmayer:

[O]enders may be convicted of more than a single oence. A single

incident of break and enter may result in the laying of four or ve

criminal charges, which in turn may result in several dispositions.

us, oenders may face multiple charges, and may receive multiple

sentences for a single conviction.

In addition, sentences often include multiple elements. Judges not only

decide on which sanction(s) to employ; they must also determine the

appropriate magnitude (e.g., duration or amount, number of condi-

tions) of the sanction(s). Although a concerted eort has been made to

disaggregate the data presented in this chapter, many important pat-

terns and trends remain hidden because of this inherent complexity.

Second, sentencing options are not static — they evolve along with

public (and government) sentiments on crime and justice. Some sanc-

tions, such as whipping and the death penalty, once played a prominent

role in Canada’s penal regime but have since been abolished. Others,

such as the conditional sentence of imprisonment, have been intro-

duced relatively recently. Even for those options that have been available

throughout much of Canada’s history, there have been notable changes

 Julian V Roberts & Andrew Birkenmayer, “Sentencing in Canada: Recent Statistical

Trends” ()  Canadian Journal of Criminology  at .

 The death penalty was used from Canada’s early history to . While it was de facto

abolished in , it was not until  when Bill C-, An Act to amend the Criminal

Code in relation to the punishment for murder and other serious oences, st Sess,

th Parl, , ocially removed it as a sentencing option.

 The conditional sentence of imprisonment was introduced in  with the enact-

ment of Bill C-, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Sentencing) and other Acts in

consequence thereof, st Sess, th Parl,  (assented to  July , proclaimed