| NCJ Number: |
194114  |
| |
|
| Title: |
Appellate Review of Sentencing (From The Changing Face of Conditional Sentencing, P 65-71, 2000, Canada Department of Justice) |
| |
|
| Author(s): |
Justice W. Vancise |
| |
|
| Date Published: |
2000 |
| |
|
| Page Count: |
7 |
| |
|
| Sponsoring Agency: |
Canada Department of Justice
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8, Canada |
| |
|
| Sale Source: |
Canada Department of Justice
Justice Bldg. Kent St., at Wellington St.
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8,
Canada |
| |
|
| Type: |
Conference Material |
| |
|
| Format: |
Book (Softbound) |
| |
|
| Language: |
English; French |
| |
|
| Country: |
Canada |
| |
|
| Annotation: |
This document examines the historical interpretation by appellate courts of the statutory appeal power to review sentences. |
| |
|
| Abstract: |
The Canadian Criminal Code gives trial judges discretion to prescribe different degrees or kinds of punishment in respect of an offense subject tot he limitations prescribed in the Code. The Code provides that, where an appeal is taken against sentence, the court of appeal can consider the fitness of the sentence appealed against and may either vary the sentence within the limits prescribed by law for the offense, or dismiss the appeal. The two opposing points of view regarding the power of courts to appeal to review sentences are: as far as sentences are concerned, the Court of Appeal should interfere rarely; and a Court of Appeal is carrying out its obligation to consider the fitness of the sentence appealed against and has a duty to go into the matter fully. Unless courts of appeal approach these matters with a certain degree of flexibility, injustice will be created rather than reducing disparities and injustices in sentencing. The Supreme Court of Canada has judicially legislated a new meaning for the word “fitness.” A sentence must be demonstrably unfit and the trial judge must have committed either some error in principal, or failed to consider or overemphasized a relevant factor in imposing the sentence. This is an example of the Supreme Court reducing the powers of courts of appeal. The opinion is that this cannot in the long run produce a positive approach to sentencing. 30 footnotes
|
| |
|
| Main Term(s): |
Canada; Judicial discretion |
| |
|
| Index Term(s): |
Alternatives to institutionalization; Sentence effectiveness; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing reform; Sentencing trends; Sentencing/Sanctions; Supervised liberty |
| |
|
| Note: |
See NCJ-194108-113, and NCJ-194115 for related chapters. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=194114 |
| |
|
