Search

Au Canada, la determination de la peine comporte de nombreux problemes, mais un point faible se demarque : le tres haut taux d'incarceration chez les Autochtones. Cet article documente les tendances actuelles et historiques des taux d'incarcerations des Autochtones aux niveaux provincial/territorial et federal depuis 1978. Nous nous attardons particulierement aux annees qui ont suivies deux jugements importants de la Cour supreme (en 1999 et 2012) qui a ordonne les cours de faire preuve de plus grande retenue quand venait le temps de determiner la peine de detenus autochtones. Les donnees primaires viennent de l'enquete sur les Services correctionnels pour adultes realisee par Statistiques Canada. En 2014, les personnes autochtones formaient un peu plus d'un quart de toutes les incarcerations provinciales et territoriales, une hausse importante depuis le pourcentage note en 1978 (16 %). En fait, au cours des 20 dernieres annees, toutes les juridictions sauf une ont note une augmentation du pourcentage d'incarcerations d'Autochtones dans les etablissements correctionnels provinciaux et territoriaux. Malgre les jugements de la Cour supreme et des cours d'appel provinciales, ainsi que plusieurs autres interventions de reeducation, notamment la creation de tribunaux dits Gladue et une forme alternative de detention passee dans la communaute, le probleme de la surincarceration des Autochtones s'est empire au lieu de s'ameliorer. Abstract: Sentencing in Canada is beset by many problems, yet one weakness stands above the rest: the disproportionately high rates of Aboriginal incarceration. This article documents current and historical trends in levels of Aboriginal incarceration at the provincial/territorial and federal levels since 1978. We pay particular attention to the years following two important Supreme Court judgements (in 1999 and 2012) that directed the courts to use custody with greater restraint when sentencing an Aboriginal offender. The primary data derive from the annual Adult Correctional Services survey conducted by Statistics Canada. In 2014, Aboriginal persons accounted for just over one quarter of all provincial and territorial admissions, significantly higher than the percentage recorded in 1978 (16%). In fact, over the past 20 years, all jurisdictions save one have experienced an increase in the percentage of Aboriginal admissions to provincial and territorial correctional institutions. Despite judgements from the Supreme Court and provincial courts of appeal, as well as several other remedial interventions, such as the creation of so-called Gladue courts and an alternate form of custody that would be served in the community, the problem of Aboriginal over-incarceration has worsened, not improved.

Public confidence in criminal justice has emerged as an important issue in most western nations. Several jurisdictions have made promoting public confidence a policy priority, and governments in many countries have recently conducted public opinion surveys to gauge levels of confidence in criminal justice. However, little is known about levels of public confidence in criminal justice in Canada. This article reviews the empirical research on this issue and attempts to explain current trends. Although a significant plurality of the public expresses little confidence in the justice system, more people are positive than are negative. In comparison to other countries, confidence levels in criminal justice are generally higher in Canada. This said, the public has less confidence in the justice system than in other public institutions such as the health care system. Consistent with findings elsewhere, the police attract most, and the prison system the least amount of public confidence. The article places these findings in context, and discusses their implications for research and policy. Dans la plupart des pays occidentaux, le niveau de confiance que le grand public manifeste envers le regime de justice penale est devenu une question importante. Ainsi, en etablissant leurs orientations politiques, plusieurs instances ont privilegie la promotion de cette confiance, et au cours des dernieres annees les gouvernements de maints pays ont mene des enquetes d'opinion publique destinees a jauger le niveau de confiance du grand public envers la justice penale. Cependant, nos connaissances concernant les taux de confiance envers la justice penale au Canada sont limitees. Dans le present article, l'auteur passe en revue les recherches empiriques en la matiere et presente une explication des tendances actuelles. Ainsi, alors qu'un nombre significatif de Canadiens expriment peu de confiance envers le systeme de justice penale, l'opinion de la plupart des repondants est plutot favorable. En general, les niveaux de confiance envers le systeme de justice penale sont plus eleves au Canada qu'ailleurs. Ceci dit, le grand public manifeste moins de confiance envers le systeme de justice qu'envers d'autres composantes du secteur public telles que le systeme des soins de sante. Ce sont les services policiers qui jouissent du plus haut niveau de confiance, alors que le systeme carceral obtient la cote la plus faible. Enfin, l'auteur contextualise ces constats et discute de leurs impacts eventuels sur les recherches ulterieures et les politiques gouvernementales.

This article reports findings from two representative public-opinion surveys that explored Canadians' attitudes toward three important sentencing issues: the severity of sentencing; the purposes of sentencing; and mandatory sentences of imprisonment. As has been found by polls over the past 30 years, most Canadians believe that sentencing practices are too lenient. The same result emerged from a poll conducted in 2005: 74% of respondents held the view that sentencing is too lenient - a finding consistent with polls conducted throughout the 1980s. With respect to the purposes of sentencing, strongest public support emerged for the restorative sentencing objectives of promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender and securing reparation for the crime victim. There was less support for the more traditional purposes of deterrence and incapacitation. This finding represents a marked contrast to findings from the last survey that evaluated public reaction to sentencing purposes (in 1985). Slightly more than half the sample in 2005 expressed support for mandatory sentencing - a result consistent with opinion surveys from the United States and Australia. However, there was strong public support for mandatory sentencing legislation that also permits a limited degree of judicial discretion. The public appear aware of the dangers of an absolute mandatory sentence of imprisonment and support mandatory sentences in which courts may impose a lesser sentence where exceptional circumstances exist. The implications of these findings for sentencing policy in Canada are discussed. © 2007 CJCCJ/RCCJP.

Editor's introduction This forum aims to promote one of our journal's primary functions: to bring together scholars and practitioners working in the criminal justice system. It addresses one of the most vexing issues in criminal justice: the role of the victim. The movement promoting victims' rights has gained considerable ground in recent decades--in Canada as well as in other common law jurisdictions (see Roach 1999; Sebba 1996). Victims now have considerably more input into the criminal process than they had 20 years ago. In the area of sentencing, since 1988 crime victims in Canada have had the right to submit a victim impact statement at sentencing; more recent amendments to the Criminal Code have expanded still further the rights of the victim in this regard. The contributors to this forum address the role of the victim in plea negotiations, a much misunderstood element of the criminal justice system. Victim advocates have long argued that crime victims should have some input into these discussions. Simon Verdun-Jones and Adamira Tijerino, academics from the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, review the experience with respect to victim input, both here and in the United States. They examine a number of different models to provide victims with more "voice" in these discussions. Their article is followed by commentaries contributed by three experienced and distinguished criminal justice practitioners: Judge Donna Hackett of the Ontario Court of Justice; Nevina Crisante, Counsel for the Ontario Victim Services Secretariat; and Allen Edgar, Director of the Centre for Judicial Research and Education in Toronto. The journal is grateful to these individuals for taking the time from their busy schedules to read and respond to the Verdun-Jones and Tijerino article. Julian V. Roberts Editor, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice References Roach, Kent 1999 Due Process and Victims' Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sebba, Leslie 1996 "Third Parties": Victims and the Criminal Justice System. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Rubrique speciale sur le role de la victime dans les negociations de plaidoyer Introduction du redacteur en chef Ce forum s'est donne pour objectif de faire la promotion de l'une des fonctions principales de la Revue : rassembler les chercheurs et les praticiens oauvrant au sein du systeme de justice penale. C'est ainsi que, sous cette rubrique speciale, nous voulons approfondir l'une des questions des plus delicates dans le domaine de la justice penale, soit le role de la victime. …

This brief article reviews the principal sentencing provisions of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, and explores their relationship to sentencing at the adult court level. As well, a number of normative issues raised by the YCJA are addressed. It is clear that a central goal of the act is to harmonize sentencing at the adult and youth court levels. However, several important differences remain, including the following: (1) the statement of purpose of sentencing in youth justice courts lays more emphasis on rehabilitation; (2) although the utilitarian sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, and incapacitation are relevant to the sentencing of adults, they are not stated objectives for sentencing juveniles; (3) while important, proportionality plays a lesser role in the sentencing of juvenile offenders, although the influence of the principle will increase with the age of the young person; (4) courts should resort to the incarceration of the offender less often when sentencing juvenile offenders; (5) when considering the principle of parity in sentencing, the frame of reference for youth courts should be the region in which the individual is being sentenced; there is no such statutory direction at the adult level.

The high rates of Aboriginal admissions to custody have been noted by Commissions of Inquiry, all levels of government, and Corrections texts in Canada for some time. In the most recent year for which data are available (2000–2001), Aboriginal offenders accounted for 19% of provincial admissions and 17% of federal admissions to custody. This article examines provincial custodial sentenced admissions for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders since 1978, when national statistics including the ethnicity of the offender were first published. Particular emphasis is paid in this analysis to recent trends during a period in which Parliament and the Supreme Court have tried to address the problem, the former by statutory recognition of the unique nature of Aboriginal offenders, the latter by judgments interpreting Criminal Code sentencing provisions introduced in 1996. The findings suggest that little progress has been made in reducing the number of Aboriginal sentenced admissions over the past few decades. Although the volume of Aboriginal admissions to custody has declined since 1993–1994, non-Aboriginal admissions have declined at an even faster rate, suggesting that specific policy changes are not responsible for the Aboriginal decline.