Public attitudes to sentencing in Canada: exploring recent findings.

Introduction

Public attitudes toward sentencing in Canada have been the subject of systematic research for well over a generation now--beginning with the Legal Research Institute Survey conducted in 1978 (reported in Moore 1985). One reason for this interest on the part of researchers is that sentencing has always placed high on the public criminal justice agenda. This is particularly true at the present. Several specific issues, including mandatory sentencing, conditional sentencing, and parole, have attracted newspaper headlines and generated public and political discussion in recent years. The result has been an increase in calls for punitive sentencing reforms, including the expansion of the use and severity of mandatory sentencing, the elimination of conditional sentences for a range of offences, and the abolition of statutory release. In 2006 the federal government introduced legislation to expand the number and severity of mandatory sentences of imprisonment (see below). This article examines the state of public attitudes regarding three of the most important contemporary sentencing issues: mandatory sentencing; sentencing objectives; and sentence severity.

Mandatory sentencing

Most Western nations have enacted mandatory sentencing legislation in recent years. These laws usually focus on serious violent and repeat offenders (see Roberts 2005 for a review of representative statutes). The mandatory sentences of imprisonment in some jurisdictions are particularly severe. For example, in South Africa, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 created long mandatory sentences of imprisonment for a range of offences, particularly when the offender has previous convictions. An offender convicted of robbery for the third or subsequent occasion must be sentenced to at least 25 years in prison. Mandatory sentencing laws have usually been introduced to address escalating crime rates (or perceptions of rising crime rates) and to respond to public pressure to make the sentencing process harsher (Roberts, Stalans, Indermaur, and Hough 2003).

For many politicians, mandatory sentences represent a convenient, expeditious, and popular response to a specific crime problem (see discussion in Doob and Cesaroni 2001). Since polls repeatedly show that the public believes sentencing to be excessively lenient, any reform that promises greater severity is perceived to be consistent with public opinion. For example, an Australian prime minister stated several years ago that he was "not surprised at the overwhelming support that Australians have shown for the introduction of mandatory sentencing laws" (Burke 2000, 1). He was referring, however, not to a scientific survey using a representative sample but simply to a tabloid newspaper initiative in which interested readers had been asked to express their opinions on the issue. Politicians' interpretation of public opinion in this area may be erroneous; public support for mandatory sentencing may be not as strong as many suppose. Contrary evidence can be found in a poll conducted in the United States in 1999, which found that more than half of the sample stated that they would be more likely to vote for a politician who advocated increasing judicial discretion--the antithesis to mandatory sentencing (Zogby International 1999).

The fatal shooting in Toronto on Boxing Day 2005 of teenager Jane Creba shocked Canadians and resulted in calls for more and more severe mandatory sentences of imprisonment for firearms offences. The fact that this crime took place during the middle of a federal election gave additional impetus to the movement to amend the existing mandatory sentence provisions of the Criminal Code. In response, the Conservative Party of Canada announced that, if elected, it would create new firearms offences that would carry five-year minimum terms of imprisonment (Conservative Party of Canada 2005). In addition to legislating new mandatory sentences, the party also announced that it would significantly increase the severity of the existing mandatory penalties prescribed for gun-related offences. At the time when these calls for reform were made, an offender convicted of one or more of 10 serious offences received a sentence of least four years in prison if the crime was committed with a firearm. Even the New Democrats--for the first time in their history--advocated the creation of additional mandatory minimum sentences. In their electoral platform they proposed the creation of a four-year minimum sentence for illegal possession and sale of restricted firearms--such as handguns and automatics--as well as a four-year minimum sentence for importing illegal firearms (NDP Canada 2005). The Liberal party also included stiffer mandatory minimum sentences for firearms in their platform (Liberal Party of Canada 2006). Once elected, the new federal government moved swiftly to introduce mandatory sentencing legislation.

Bill C-10 was introduced on 4 May 2006 for the purpose of amending the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing for firearms offences. The legislation calls for a number of amendments, including increasing the four-year minimum for certain firearms offences to five years for first-time offenders. The legislation also provides for escalating minimum penalties for repeat offenders. For example, for a second conviction of a specified firearms offence (e.g., robbery with firearm), the minimum sentence would be seven years' imprisonment; if there is a third conviction, the minimum sentence would rise to 10 years. There are also several firearms offences that currently carry a one-year minimum sentence, which, if the legislation is passed, will increase to three years for a first conviction and five years for any subsequent convictions. The legislation also aims to create two new offences: breaking and entering with intent to steal a firearm and robbery with intent to steal a firearm. A conviction for either of these two offences would result in a three-year minimum sentence for a first conviction and a five-year minimum sentence for any subsequent convictions. This bill received second reading on 13 June 2006 and was referred to the Committee on Justice and Human Rights.