Canadian Sentencing Commission

G Seecig eom A Caaia Aoac eo o e Caaia Seecig Commissio euay 197 Caaa m Miise o Suy a Seices Caaa 19 Aaiae i Caaa oug Associae ooksoes a oe ooksees o y mai om Caaia Goeme uisig Cee Suy a Seices Caaa Oawa Caaa K IA S9 Caaogue o 7/19E Caaa $75 IS --15- Oe Couies $97 ice suec o cage wiou oice All rht rrvd. prt f th pbltn b rprdd, trd n rtrvl t, r trnttd b n n, ltrn, hnl. phtpn, rrdn r thr, tht th prr rttn emissio o th blhn Snt, Cndn Gvrnnt blhn Cee Oawa Caaa KIA 0. e Caaia Seecig a Commissio Commissio fl caaiee su Ia eemiaio e a eie euay 197 o e Eceecy e Goeo Geea i Couci May i ease You Eceecy We e Commissioes aoie ue a I o e Iquiies Ac y Oe i Couci o May 1 19 C 19-155 as amee o euay 195; C 195-1 i accoace wi e ems o eeece assige eei ae iquie io a eg eae o sumi is eo o seecig i Caaa e ecommeaios coaie i is eo coemae a comeesie eom o seecig aws a acices i Caaa ese ecommeaios eese a ig egee o cosesus a o e mos a ae uaimous We esecuy sumi ou ecommeaios a Caue isso Ae C Caa Aoy oo eeick C ayes Ewa ago uo aeas (Mioiy eo o e aue o seecig guieies C6... t aa SK Wo Ome Acamau Caima i Memes o e Commissio a Sa Commissioes is oou uge Ome Acamau oicia Cou o Saskacewa ice Ae Saskacewa Caima e oouae Caue isso M Ae C Caa C Queec Cou o Aea Cie Cou Commuicao Moea Queec Maioa aie Cou ice-Caima Commuicao ogam Wiieg Maioa oesso Aoy oo is oou uge eeick C ayes ieco Cie uge Cee o Cimioogy oicia Cou o Oaio Uiesiy o ooo (Cimia iisio ooo Oaio ooo Oaio is oou uge E ago M uo aeas QC Associae Cie uge aeas & eoi oicia Cou o ewoua aises & Soicios S os ewoua Moea Queec e oouae aa SK Wog e oou uge Gays Youg Couy Cou o acoue oicia Cou o ew uswick acoue iis Coumia Cameo ew uswick eseac Sa Amiisaie Sa oesso ea-au oeu aicia u Ecoe e cimioogie Amiisaie Oice Uiesi e Moea ieco o eseac eae M Mo A y Ouee Seio eseac Aays Seceay Kae Makam acy oswe eseac Aays Seceay uia oes eseac Aays Gaiea Caaeo A (Gauae Sue i Cimioogy eseac Assisa (a-ime Acknowledgements In undertaking our mandate, we have received valuable assistance and support from provincial governments and a number of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada, most particularly, the Department of Justice, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and the Law Reform Commission of Canada. The ongoing administrative help and advice provided to the Commission by officials of the Department of Justice assisted the efficient operation of the Commission and were greatly appreciated. In addition, we have been assisted by suggestions received from numerous individual Canadians (laypersons and professionals alike), leading scholars in the area of sentencing from other countries, professional associations and community and voluntary associations, who made submissions to the Commission or otherwise gave us the benefit of their views and advice. On behalf of all the members of the Commission, I would like to express our gratitude to the Honourable William Robert Sinclair of Edmonton, Alberta, formerly a Justice of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, who, for the first seven months, served as Chairman of the Commission. Although regrettably he was unable to continue as a member of the Commission, we were fortunate in benefitting from his expertise and experience in setting up the Commission and launching it on the right course. We thank him for his valuable contribution. Commissions, such as ours, must rl heavily on their research staff in the realization of their mandate. Given the number of Commissioners, eight of whom were part-time, and the breadth of our mandate, it was crucial that the Commission recruit a competent and efficient research team. We were very successful in enlisting the services of research officers who served us extremely well. Although they came from different backgrounds each one of our research officers, Renate Mohr, Karen Markham and Julian Roberts, made unique and effective contributions to the work of the Commission. The quality and volume of their work and their timely performance was beyond normal expectations. They responded cheerfully and unselfishly to our frequently urgent requests for information within next to impossible deadlines and invariably delivered a superior product. The high quality of their work made our task much easier. We were also assisted toward the end of our mandate by Gabriella Cavallero who, as research assistant, tirelessly and efficiently performed many of those tasks which make it possible to complete a report such as this one. vii Special thanks go to Dr. Jean-Paul Brodeur, our esteemed Research Director. At the outset upon examining our mandate it readily became clear that the Commission would require a director of research who was not only knowledgeable but who had a vision of the range and depth of issues to be considered as well as the ability to assist the Commissioners in structuring the next two years so as to allow in-depth consideration of issues within a rigorous time-frame. Jean-Paul Brodeur, with the aid of his staff, saw to it that research was planned in advance and completed on time and organized information and background material in such a way that we were able to derive the maximum benefit from our meetings and keep our decision-making on an orderly schedule. The combination of his high degree of expertise, reliability and dedication was exceptional; it not only inspired confidence but made our work so much easier. We are indebted to I'Ecole de Criminologie of the Universite de Montreal for generously acceding to the secondment of Dr. Brodeur to the Commission. The work of the administrative personnel deserves special mention, since it is their dedication and efficiency that allowed the completion of massive amounts of work in short periods of time. Since this Commission had relatively few full-time staff persons, co-operation in all aspects of our work became essential. Madeleine de Carufel was our first administrator and laid a solid foundation for the smooth operation of the Commission. Patricia Rutt, without whom meetings with Commissioners from across the country could never have run so smoothly, served not only as our administrative officer, but took on tasks ranging from endless photocopying to proofreading the final report. Perhaps more than anyone else, Nancy Boswell and Lynn Ouellet, the permanent secretaries to the Commission, were called upon to undertake tasks above and beyond the call of duty and always succeeded in fulfilling these requests, no matter how late the hour. Their support for and assistance to the research staff and members of the Commission was invaluable. In thanking them for their generous contribution and unfailing efforts, I echo the sentiments expressed throughout the course of our mandate by all the Commissioners and members of the research staff. In closing, let me say that the task of this Commission was both challenging and difficult. The Commissioners accept full responsibility for their recommendations. While the issues dealt with were not easy to resolve, the quality of the decision-making was in large measure attributable to Jean- Paul Brodeur and his very able staff. The realization of all this work was greatly facilitated by the good will and valuable assistance of the administrative personnel. All the members of the Commission join me in expressing to the entire staff our sincere appreciation and thanks for a job well done. I am indebted to all of them and will continue to cherish their friendship. J.R. Omer Archambault, P.C.J. Chairman viii Table of Contents Summary.......................................................................................................... xxi PartI — The Issues ....................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Terms of Reference ......................................................3 I. Terms of Reference ................................................................... 6 2. Issues Excluded from the Inquiry ............................................9 3. Previous Commissions in Canada and Elsewhere .................. 10 3.1 Previous Commissions in Canada .................................. 10 3.2 Commissions in Other Countries ................................... 11 4. Sources of Information and Commission Activities ............... 12 4.1 Submissions ...................................................................... 13 4.2 Meetings ........................................................................... 13 4.3 Public Information About the Commission .................. 13 4.4 Consultations _ _ 14 4.5 Surveys ............................................................................. 14 4.6 Research Program ........................................................... 14 4.7 Commission Activities ..................................................... 15 5. Integrated Nature of the Terms of Reference ........................ 16 Chapter 2: Historical Overview ..................................................... 19 1. The Development of the Penalty Structure ............................ 22 1.1 From 1791 to 1846: The Wane of Capital Punish- ment and the Establishment of Kingston Peniten- tiary ............................................................................... 22 1.1.1 Banishment and Transportation ......................... 23 1.1.2 The Establishment of Kingston Penitentiary .... 25 1.2 From 1847 to 1867: Centralization and Decentraliza- tion ...............................................................................

Load more