Comparative Study Of Sentencing Principles In Canada And The Us
1. Introduction: Sentencing Principles in Canada vs. the U.S.
Sentencing is the judicial process by which a court imposes a punishment on someone convicted of a crime. Both Canada and the U.S. share similar goals—deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, and public protection—but their approaches and legal frameworks differ significantly.
| Aspect | Canada | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | Criminal Code of Canada; sentencing guidelines under Section 718–718.2 | Federal and State statutes; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (federal) |
| Sentencing Focus | Proportionality, rehabilitation, restorative justice | Retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, often harsher punishments |
| Discretion | Judges have broad discretion but guided by statutory principles | Guidelines are more rigid, especially federal, though discretion exists for departures |
| Maximum Penalties | Less frequent use of life without parole for non-homicide | Life without parole and the death penalty more common in some states |
2. Key Sentencing Principles
Canada
Proportionality: Sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the offender's degree of responsibility.
Denunciation: Sentence must express society’s disapproval.
Deterrence: Individual and general deterrence are important.
Rehabilitation: Encouraged whenever possible, especially for non-violent offenders.
Restorative justice: Increasingly considered, particularly for Indigenous offenders.
United States
Retribution: Punishment should fit the crime.
Deterrence: Both specific (to the individual) and general (to society).
Incapacitation: Removing dangerous offenders from society.
Rehabilitation: Less emphasized than in Canada, though it exists.
Mandatory minimums & guidelines: Federal and state sentencing laws often impose strict ranges.
3. Comparative Case Law Analysis
Here are five detailed cases from each country illustrating sentencing principles in practice.
Canada Cases
Case 1: R v. Gladue (1999 SCC 41)
Facts: The Supreme Court considered the sentencing of an Indigenous woman convicted of manslaughter.
Principle: Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code requires courts to consider background and systemic factors affecting Indigenous offenders.
Outcome: Sentencing focused on rehabilitation and community-based programs rather than incarceration.
Significance: Emphasizes restorative justice and individualized sentencing.
Case 2: R v. Ipeelee (2012 SCC 13)
Facts: Two Indigenous offenders were given life sentences for serious crimes.
Principle: Reinforced Gladue principles, emphasizing that judges must consider systemic and background factors before imposing harsh sentences.
Outcome: The Supreme Court stressed that failing to consider these factors could make a sentence disproportionate.
Case 3: R v. Arcand (1993)
Facts: The defendant committed armed robbery with violence.
Principle: Courts must balance deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.
Outcome: Court imposed a significant custodial sentence for public protection but considered the offender's youth as a mitigating factor.
Significance: Shows Canadian courts balancing punishment with rehabilitation.
Case 4: R v. Lacasse (2015 SCC 64)
Facts: Conviction for first-degree murder, where parole eligibility was considered.
Principle: Life sentences are mandatory, but parole eligibility periods can vary.
Outcome: Court emphasized proportionality and individualized sentencing for serious offenses.
Case 5: R v. Nur (2015 SCC 15)
Facts: Multiple firearms possession offenses with mandatory minimum sentences.
Principle: Mandatory minimums can be unconstitutional if they lead to cruel and unusual punishment.
Outcome: Supreme Court struck down some minimums as overly harsh, emphasizing judicial discretion.
United States Cases
Case 1: United States v. Booker (543 U.S. 220, 2005)
Facts: Defendant challenged mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.
Principle: Federal guidelines must be advisory, not mandatory, to preserve judicial discretion.
Outcome: Courts can deviate from guidelines but must consider them.
Significance: Balances uniformity with individualized sentencing.
Case 2: Solem v. Helm (463 U.S. 277, 1983)
Facts: Defendant had a life sentence without parole for a nonviolent felony.
Principle: Sentences must be proportionate to the crime to avoid cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment).
Outcome: Court found life sentence excessive, emphasizing proportionality similar to Canada’s approach.
Case 3: Miller v. Alabama (567 U.S. 460, 2012)
Facts: Mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders.
Principle: Unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment; youthfulness and potential for rehabilitation must be considered.
Outcome: Courts cannot impose mandatory life without parole on juveniles.
Case 4: Graham v. Florida (560 U.S. 48, 2010)
Facts: Juvenile sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide.
Principle: Violates the 8th Amendment; must allow chance for rehabilitation.
Outcome: Courts are required to consider the offender's potential for reform.
Case 5: United States v. Booker & Fanfan (2005)
Facts: Federal sentencing guidelines challenged as too rigid.
Principle: Judges must consider guidelines but retain discretion to tailor sentences.
Outcome: Sentences now advisory rather than mandatory, promoting proportionality.
4. Comparative Observations
Mandatory Minimums:
Canada: Judicial discretion allows flexibility; extreme mandatory minimums may be struck down.
U.S.: Historically strict, though judicial review has increased flexibility post-Booker.
Youth and Rehabilitation:
Both systems increasingly protect juvenile offenders from life without parole.
Restorative Justice:
Canada integrates it into sentencing, especially for Indigenous offenders.
U.S.: Rarely used, more punitive focus.
Proportionality & Cruel Punishment:
Canada codifies it (Section 718.1), U.S. constitutional jurisprudence ensures it (8th Amendment).
5. Conclusion
Canada emphasizes proportionality, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.
The U.S. historically prioritizes retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation, though modern jurisprudence increasingly aligns with proportionality principles.
Case law in both countries reflects a gradual shift toward individualized sentencing and consideration of systemic and personal factors, particularly for vulnerable populations like juveniles or marginalized groups.
RELATED Blog
comments