Suchergebnisse

This article addresses the question of why Canada still has mandatory minimum sentences despite inquiries by a number of commissions that suggest abolition. It suggests that politicians and judges alike not only promote mandatory minimum policies, but also speak about them in much the same way - as a way of fighting crime. Though the evidence is clear that mandatory minimum sentences are not an effective crime-control strategy, and actually disrupt the sensible operation of the justice system, it is apparent that the deterrence message they deliver is still functional for politicians and is rarely challenged by judges.

The legislation passed in 1997 that provides for mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes was recently extended for another two years. At the time, the aim was to reduce serious and violent crime, achieve consistency in sentencing, and satisfy the public that sentences were sufficiently severe. This article argues that the legislation has achieved little or no significant impact with regard to these goals. Instead, many agree that the provisions have exacerbated the problem of overcrowding in South African prisons.

This report contains the safety valve and substantial assistance exceptions on the federal mandatory minimum sentences.

In this article, the author discusses the nature and consequences of the mandatory sentences of imprisonment created by Bill C-63 in 1995. These mandatory sentences constitute the most comprehensive collection of mandatory minima in Canadian history, and will affect significant numbers of offenders. Unlike most mandatory minima created in other jurisdictions such as Australia, England, and Wales, the legislation that created the firearms offence minima offer no provision to be invoked in exceptional cases. In this article, the author addresses the effect that these new statutory minima am likely to have on sentencing patterns It is argued that they should not have an inflationary effect on sentence lengths for all firearms offences, and certainly not for other, unrelated crimes. Allowing the new mandatory minima to inflate sentencing lengths would cause considerable damage to the architecture of the sentencing system. Such a change would also be inconsistent with the codified principles of sentencing. The article concludes by reiterating a proposal to promote a more rational and coherent sentencing policy development: creation of a Permanent Sentencing Commission.

This paper explores the role of argumentation within the debates on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, that came into force in 2012. Through examining Hansard transcripts, this paper aims to investigate how argumentation on mandatory minimums was utilized in this political decision making setting to legitimize and accomplish this policy initiative. I draw upon the concepts of normative democratic deliberation, new right ideology and the punitive turn to explore the Harper government's use of argumentation strategies and discuss their implications for the Canadian political process and the current direction of the administration of justice in Canada. This paper's goal is to contribute to literature on mandatory minimums and policy making through an exploration of the political deliberative process through which the C-10 provisions on mandatory minimums were adopted.

Over the past decade, federal sentencing issues concerning child pornography have produced considerable legal debate, much of it focused on the application of federal sentencing guidelines as set forth by the United States Sentencing Commission (U.S.S.C.). Many judges have opined that the factors used to calculate the adjusted offense level for some child pornography offenses may be out of date, impracticable, and/or in conflict with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), which requires, among other things, "just punishments." Particular concerns have been expressed that strict application of the sentencing guidelines can produce results in which possessors of child pornography (i.e. those who commit less serious child pornography offenses as compared to producers or distributers) may be sentenced near the statutory maximum. This has caused some judges to inquire into the rationality of guidelines which they argue place even the less culpable offenders at the level of punishment reserved for the most serious of offenders. Recognizing these concerns, the Department of Justice has asked the United States Sentencing Commission to re-evaluate and update the current guidelines to "better calibrate the severity and culpability of defendants' criminal conduct" and "ensure that the sentences for certain child exploitation offenses adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes.[and] changes in the use of technology and in the way these crimes are regularly carried out today." As the Sentencing Commission works to assess and resolve some of these concerns, some remain dissatisfied with the sentencing options for child pornography crimes. In response, some judges have attempted to wage a challenge on a new frontier: not the advisory sentencing guidelines, but the legislated mandatory minimum sentences. This article will examine this phenomenon and explore its potential vulnerabilities through an analysis of several recent cases, most notably the U.S. District Court opinion in United States v. C.R., issued in May 2011.