Discovering the Sphinx: Conditional Sentencing After the Supreme Court Judgement in R. v. Proulx (From The Changing Face of Conditional Sentencing, P 39-52, 2000, Canada Department of Justice)

• NCJ Number: 194111
• Author(s): Julian V. Roberts
• Date Published: 2000
• Length: 14 pages
• Sale Source: Canada Department of Justice
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Conference Material
• Language: French; English
• Country: Canada
• Note: See NCJ-194108-110, and NCJ-194112-115 for related chapters.

Annotation

This document addresses three principal questions regarding conditional sentencing.

Abstract

After almost 4 years in which over 40,000 conditional sentences were imposed, the Canada Supreme Court has given some directions regarding the use of the new sanction. The unanimous judgment addresses three principal questions. The first is what is a conditional sentence of imprisonment. Conditional sentence is a hybrid sanction that is neither punishment nor restoration. The number and nature of conditions determines the severity of a conditional sentence. The changes wrought by the recent judgment affect three features of the conditional sentence: duration, conditions, and breach. A conditional sentence may now be longer than the term of custody it replaces. Conditions imposed will be more numerous and more punitive. Incarceration following proven breach of conditions will become the norm. The second principal question is how should a conditional sentence be constructed. Each conditional sentence must carry a punitive element but the Court intended conditional sentences to include both punitive and restorative aspects. Whether a particular conditional sentence is primarily restorative or primarily punitive will depend on the nature of optional conditions imposed. The third principal question is what is the appropriate judicial response to an unjustified breach of the order. Incarceration following proven breach of conditions will become the norm. The judges have been provided with considerable discretion in terms of responding to unjustified breaches. The message is clear: where an offender breaches a condition without reasonable excuse, there should be a presumption that the offender serve the remainder of his or her sentence in jail. Conditional sentences will in all probability become somewhat longer and somewhat more onerous. Offenders can expect a more rigorous response from courts in the event that they breach conditions of the order without a reasonable excuse. 47 footnotes