Mandatory Minimum Sentences Question

What is Mandatory Minimum Sentencing? The government and other members of parliament introduce crime bills that they hope will become laws that will protect society from wrongdoers. Sometimes these bills are controversial, meaning that there may be strong differences of opinion about how wise they are. Sometimes politicians will introduce bills that they know will please their constituents (the people who voted them into office), because they hope this will make them popular, and that it will help to get them elected again at the next general election. It may also be the case that a member of parliament very much agrees with the beliefs of their constituents when they put forward a particular bill. One very controversial bill, Bill C-68 concerns mandatory sentencing. It was passed into law in 1995.

With the passing of this bill into law, twenty-nine offences in the Canadian Criminal Code now carry a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. The majority (19) of these mandatory minimum sentences were introduced with the enactment of Bill C-68. Every year in the Canadian Parliament, private member's bills are introduced to add new minimum sentences for such activities as joy riding or to deal with repeat violent offenders. In addition, there are also mandatory minimum sentences for other offences, such as being involved in child prostitution, betting, and for impaired driving.

What is the purpose of sentencing those who have broken the law? Mandatory minimum penalties are often seen to conflict with (go against) the basic and longstanding purpose and principles of sentencing that are presented in common law and statute law in Canada. Some of these principles are found in Section 718 of the Criminal Code. This section of the code states that the purpose of sentencing criminals should be to create respect for the law. The sentence passed by a judge should contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just punishments that have one or more of the following objectives:

a. To denounce unlawful conduct;

b. To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

c. To separate offenders from society, where necessary; (imprisonment)

d. To assist in rehabilitating offenders;

e. To pay back for harm done to victims or to the community

f. To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and an acknowledgment of the harm they have done to victims and to the community.

Section 718.1 sets out how sentencing of offenders must be considered - Sentencing must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Judges follow the guidelines set forth in Section 718 to ensure that sentences meet the objectives written out in the Criminal Code. Within this framework, judges are able to use their experience and knowledge to fairly decide on a sentence.

Why should judges be allowed to use their discretion? Using their discretion allows judges to impose sentences on offenders that are appropriate in a specific case. It gives them power to make legally binding decisions and to decide from a variety of choices within a set of rules, standards, and principles. Judges take their responsibility very seriously and are guided by the facts of a case, and by existing sentencing legislation.

Opinions on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. The general public will be divided in their opinion on whether or not there should be mandatory sentences that judges have to impose. Those who support mandatary sentencing will say that they elect politicians to make laws, and that judges should do what the government has laid down. The opposing argument is that judges are trained in the law and how to apply it. Their years of training, legal experience before they became a judge - as well as their time in that role - gives them the authority to deal wisely with each individual case that comes before them. Politicians on the other hand may not have this experience, and are often guided by what will keep them in power, not always by what is most beneficial to the country as a whole.

Moves to have minimum mandatory sentencing ended. There is a bill currently before parliament (Bill S-251) that, if passed, would allow judges to depart from mandatory minimum sentencing. This bill has the active support of the Canadian Bar Association. The Bar Association is made up of both prosecutors and defence layers from all parts of Canada and has 36,000 members across the country.

The Bar Associations support shows that in Canada the judiciary are opposed to mandatory sentences of imprisonment. In addition, according to a recent survey by the Department of Justice, a study of Canadians shows that more than 60 percent of those who answered the survey felt that mandatory sentences were unfair when applied to realistic case scenarios.

The future of minimum mandatory sentencing. The future of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada remains unclear. There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool because they prevent a judge from giving what his or her expertise tells them is a fair and just sentence. In addition, minimum mandatory sentences do not offer any increased crime prevention benefits. Nevertheless, mandatory sentences remain popular with some Canadian politicians. Every year in Parliament, bills continue to be introduced that, if passed, would increase the number of mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment.

Question: In your opinion, should mandatory minimum sentences be abolished (ended), so that judges can use their experience and expertise when sentencing people for murder and other crimes? Or, consider that judges should have to accept the rules on mandatory sentences that governments of Canada have legislated? Refer to the information on this handout to support argument. response should be written in one or two paragraphs.

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Question - Guidelines and Rubric

1. Read through the handout. What is it about?

2. What is the issue that is being raised?

3. What is the question asking me to do?

being asked to give an opinion on whether judges, with their professional knowledge, experience, and expertise, should be constrained in the way they pass sentence on individual criminals. Mandatory minimum sentencing means that when judges sentence individuals convicted of certain offences, the sentence they give cannot be less than government legislation has laid down for that offence. Or, on the other hand, believe that judges should be allowed to use their knowledge, experience, and expertise to decide on a sentence that is appropriate for each individual criminal, based on the principles of sentencing that are defined in Section 718 of the Canadian criminal Code?

4. Decide on three points which support point of view and refer to the handout when writing response.

5. Use each point to write paragraph that clearly expresses your rationale.

6. Your paragraph must have a topic sentence that puts forward a strong argument in support of the point making.

7. The body of the paragraph must clearly explain three points, with any supporting examples to back them up.

8. complete paragraph with a concluding sentence, one that clearly demonstrates the strength , opinion on this question.