Sentencing in Law

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.