Living in the Shadow of Prison: Lessons From the Canadian Experience in Decarceration

• NCJ Number: 204192
• Journal: British Journal of Criminology Volume: 44 Issue: 1 Dated: January 2004 Pages: 92-112
• Author(s): Julian V. Roberts; Thomas Gabor
• Date Published: January 2004
• Length: 21 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

This study evaluated the effectiveness of Canada’s use of conditional sentences.

Abstract

Rising prison populations throughout England and Wales have made urgent the need for alternatives to incarceration. Following a review by the Home Office Sentencing Review in 2001, the Criminal Justice Bill 2002 added a conditional sentence in the form of a suspended term of imprisonment. Although many countries contain such a provision, the Canadian experience of conditional sentences, which was implemented in 1996, may be the most instructive for other jurisdictions. In Canada, an offender release on a conditional sentence will never actually spend time in a correctional facility if all the conditions of the sentence are met. The effectiveness of the conditional sentencing was measured through its impact on admissions to custody over the period 1993 through 1994 and 2000 through 2001. Changes in the volume of convictions and shifts in the use of various sanctions were controlled by using the rate of admissions to custody per 10,000 charges heard. Results of statistical analyses reveal that the conditional sentence affected a significant drop in the number of custody admissions for the study period and that only a minor degree of net widening occurred. The authors enumerate seven main lessons that may be learned from the Canadian experience with conditional sentencing, including the fact that judges should impose an actual sentence of custody before imposing a conditional sentence; the reach of the conditional sentence should be limited; the conditional sentence should be clearly distinguished from probation; provide judicial discretion in the length of the conditional sentence; the threat of imprisonment if conditions are not met should be credible; public education about the benefits of conditional sentencing is imperative; and resources for supervision must be increased. To conclude, the authors challenge jurisdictions to emphasize the restorative justice potential of conditional sentences. Tables, references