Explain what a plea bargain is.
A plea bargain is when the Crown attorney offers the accused (defence) something in return for a guilty plea.
What are some of the concessions that a Crown attorney may make?
The Crown can drop one or more charges for a guilty plea to the main charge, (Example: You break in and enter a household and assault the owner and steal stuff. The Crown may drop the theft and break and entering charges for a guilty plea to the aggravated assault). The Crown can also reduce a charge, (Example: They may reduce aggravated assault to just simple assault).
Why is a plea bargain worth the cost to an accused?
Although the accused is forfeiting any chance of getting off free, it is well worth it, as instead of taking the probable chance of being convicted of hefty crimes, the fines and/or time imprisoned.
Is plea bargaining a "necessary evil"? Support your point of view with a chart that lists its advantages and disadvantages.
It is necessary, as the judicial system can run more efficiently, and process more cases than it would if the Crown had to prove each accused person's guilt.
Advantages/Disadvantages
- Ensures accused pleads/is found guilty - Accused gets off with less charges
- Justice system runs faster with less time needed to prove accused guilty - Society may not be happy with the less and/or lower charges
- More cases can be heard
- Accused gets off with less than he/she deserves
- Case runs more efficiently than having to prove the defence's guilt
Do you think plea bargaining sacrifices justice for expediency? Explain your view.
It all depends on the severity of the case. If the case was first degree murder, then yes, justice would be sacrificed for a mere convenience. However, if the case is something much less severe, and did not have a large impact on society itself (i.e. vandalism, theft, etc.), then justice wouldn't really be sacrificed, as the offender would still receive some punishment, but at least no one was directly affected (i.e. killed, injured, etc.).
What have been the traditional aims of sentencing in Canada?
Traditionally, sentencing in Canada has been focused on achieving four aims:
- Denunciation (unacceptable behaviour is labelled and condemned)
- Deterrence, specific and general (offenders are prevented from committing other offences, deterring others from engaging in criminal activities)
- Separation (offenders are separated from society to protect the public)
- Rehabilitation (offenders are trained and treated)
Why has sentencing for the most part been an exercise of judicial discretion?
This is because the Criminal Code provides minimal guidance by setting only a maximum sentence for each offence; therefore judges are left with the most choice on what to choose for a suitable sentence for the offence.
What is the only exception to the principle of judicial discretion?
For very few crimes, there is a minimum sentence that must be met, depending on the crime. For example, the mandatory minimum penalty for first-degree murder is life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years. This means the judge must give no lower of a sentence than this.
Reconsider both the principle of judicial discretion and the use of mandatory sentencing. After carefully examining the positive and negative aspects of both, develop an argument that supports one or the other.
Judicial discretion is more ideal for the judicial system, as it ensures that it is a judge, living in modern society, who is deciding the sentence, opposed to the criminal code which, of course, can become obsolete as both times and values change.
Why is the judge an active participant in a sentence hearing?
So he/she can ask for information and by questioning the lawyers. Such interaction supports the purpose of a sentencing hearing: to craft a sentence appropriate for the particular offender and offence.
Explain what a pre-sentence report is and who prepares it.
Prepared most often by a probation officer, it contains observations on the offender's background, family situation, employment, education, and attitude, as well as information about the offence.
What is a victim statement?
It is filled out by the victim and/or victim's family regarding how they have been impacted both physically and emotionally by the crime. The court considers this when sentencing the offender.
Why is a victim impact statement important in a sentence hearing?
Because it helps the judge to decide on the penalty for the offence. If the victim/victims family have been severely impacted in a negative way, then the judge will be sterner with the sentencing; however, if the victim/victims family were not impacted much, then the judge will be more lenient.
Do you agree with the practice of allowing victim impact statements in sentencing hearings? Explain your answer.
I'd honestly rather that victim impact statements stay out of the sentencing hearings. These statements can contain false information, which would cause a loss of justice. To keep the justice, I believe that victim impact statements should not be allowed.
