NCJ Number
137401
Journal
Canadian Journal of Criminology Volume: 34 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1992) Pages: 35-50
Date Published
1992
Length
15 pages
Annotation
To facilitate understanding of the basis on which different judges sentence the same young offenders and the purposes they try to fulfill with their dispositions, 43 judges across Canada agreed to read two written descriptions of cases and recommend sentences under S.20(1) of the Youth Offenders Act for each of the four young offenders involved.
Abstract
A fair amount of variability emerged in the dispositions handed down by the judges in these cases. Most of the judges thought that each of the four accused should have been brought to court. The only accused for whom there was a significant variability was a first-time offender whose middle-class parents had attempted to take control of their child. Judges prioritized the purposes they were trying to accomplish with the disposition in different ways. For the most part, the split seemed to occur between those who favored individual deterrence and those who gave precedence to rehabilitation. There was a large amount of variation in the recommended disposition even among judges who thought the same sentencing purpose should be paramount for a given case. The results suggest that the lack of overall policy for dispositions under the Young Offenders Act lead inevitably to widely disparate treatment of similar young offenders convicted of the identical offense. 3 notes, 8 tables, and 12 references (Author abstract modified)