A just criminal sentence makes the time fit the crime

By LegalMatters Staff • As a common expression notes, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”

Deciding on what sentence should be imposed for a criminal offence is something our courts deal with daily and circumstances in each case are always different.

“There are many sentencing objectives a judge must balance,” says Ottawa criminal lawyer Céline Dostaler. They include denunciation, deterrence, protection of the public, rehabilitation, reparation, responsibility and respect for the law, she says.

The Criminal Code also demands that alternatives to incarceration must be considered, since  “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances.”

The primary purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and to ensure the continuation of a “just, peaceful, and safe society,” says Dostaler.

“Two of the key objectives of sentencing are to denounce the unlawful conduct and harm to the victim while discouraging others from committing such crimes,” she says.

Dostaler notes that some people believe that more emphasis should be given to punishing the offender while others believe that deterrence and rehabilitation should be the main goals of sentencing.

The Code states that a sentence be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

“Though it sets out a maximum sentence for all crimes, people are rarely kept in custody that length of time,” says Dostaler.

Precedent also plays an important role, she says, which is why judges look at the past decisions of higher appeal courts.

“If the range of cases dealing with a particular offence sets a one-year jail sentence as the top end, a judge will know that if they impose a harsher penalty, it could be reversed by an appeal court,” Dostaler explains.