Reduction of crime is the dream of any criminal justice system. In the era where the rate of crime has significantly increased due to the use of sophisticated weapons and technology, there is an increasing necessity for the government and other stakeholders to ensure that such crimes are minimized. Having strict punishment mechanisms is one of the strategies geared towards the reduction of crimes. In Canada, this approach is the most common. Its proponents give a two-fold argument about its role in reducing crime. First, they argue that the offender is ‘locked behind bars’, hence temporarily separated from the society. This separation means that the offender is not in a position to commit further offences. Second, the proponents of imprisonment argue that imprisoning offenders is likely to act as a warning to other potential offenders, who will opt not to commit the crime (Nurse, 2014). Whichever argument one may adopt, the impact that imprisonment has in the criminal justice system cannot be understated. Despite this, various people have objected and argued against imprisonment as a means of curbing crime in the society. They argue that it is an inhuman process. They further argue that imprisoning people hardens them, making them worse when compared to when they were imprisonment. The argument is that in prison, criminals will meet and educate each other on how to operate. This is a dangerous issue. Because of this, Canada has various initiatives that act as an alternative or supplement imprisonment. One of such initiatives in Canada is Community Based Sentencing.
As a supplement and an alternative to imprisonment in Canada, community-based sentencing and sanctions vary from one place to another. In Canada, there is a significant increase on the use of this approach as opposed to imprisonment. Non-custodial sentencing has proved to be a simple, easy and effective mechanism to curb crime as opposed to the old trick of imprisoning offenders. Several factors contributed to the emergence of this initiative. First, there is a significant increase in community awareness about the inherent limitations that imprisonment has as relates to deterrence and rehabilitation. Stuart, for instance, argues that there are high chances of rehabilitating an offender when they are in the community than when they are in prison (Stuart, 2006). He goes further to argue that imprisoning an offender is a temporary solution, not a permanent one. Making use of community-based sanctions, on the other hand, has a long-term impact.
There is evidence to the effect that limiting a person’s freedom and liberty has a negative impact to their mental state. In his study, Nurse stipulated that prisons have provided the new avenue of introducing new crime skills to the community (Nurse, 2014). Rather than serve the right purpose of deterring offenders, prisons have been used as breeding grounds. Community-based sanctions in Canada do not have this risk. An offender is not deprived off their liberty and freedom to move. Sanctions employed in this approach are mainly aimed at changing the offender’s approach and perception towards crime in the society. Proponents of this alternative argue that this is the only true way that crime can be curbed in Canada in the long-run.
The Conditional Sentence of Imprisonment
This is a community-based custody program that facilitates imprisonment in the community. Instead of the offender being imprisoned to the judicial cells, they are imprisoned in the community as they are rehabilitated. It is important to note that if and when an offender has been imprisoned under this system, the victims are made aware of this. Although community custody is different from imprisonment, it has common conditions to that of a jail (Demleitner, 2007). Conditional sentences have proved to be far flexible than imprisonment. Every offender is personally analyzed and the judges devise conditions that are a reflection of the offender’s specific needs. One advantage of this initiative over the prison system is that the victim is involved at all stages. Unlike the prison system, this approach is better-placed to promote healing and conciliation. The aspect of revenging and avenging the offences is thereby done away with, minimizing the offences in the Canada.
One of the key elements of this initiative is that it promotes understanding and sanction acceptance. Partly, this is due to the flexibility of the system, and the fact that the offender will not be subjected to judicial systems that are inhuman. The process of conditional sentencing involves all stakeholders: the public, the victim and the offender. Its aim, in most cases, is to ensure that the offender is placed in the best conditions to reform and become a law-abiding citizen. The importance of involving the victims in this process cannot be disputed. The case of R. v. Proulx reiterated the importance of promoting understanding and acceptance. Specifically, this case promoted the use of the principles of restorative justice.
The above approach has been effective as compared to the traditional imprisonment process. Its impact has been widely felt, leading to a significant decrease in the rates of crime in Canada. Despite this, it is important to still maintain the judicial imprisonment system for hard-core criminals. Not all offenders can be subjected to this system. Serial offender, for instance, should be imprisoned in a move to incapacitate them and separate them from the community.
Rationale and philosophy of punishment that informs this initiative
Community-based sentencing in Canada is justified in several ways. It is important to note that to a large extent, this alternative has the same purpose as imprisonment, only that it is more refined, involves all stakeholders and ensures that the offender is not subjected to inhuman conditions. Be that as it may, the rationale of this initiative is as follows.
Community-based sentencing and deterrence
This initiative in Canada is geared to deter potential offenders from engaging in criminal activities. It is important to note that for this role, the initiative only acts as a supplement to imprisonment, rather than an alternative. Community-based sentencing is not as inhuman as the judicial imprisonment. Offenders are not curtailed off their liberty and freedoms. They are not subjected to harsh conditions. Regardless, the fact that they are put in custody and constant watch implies that in one way or the other, their freedom is limited. As a matter of fact, people do not like this being the case. People prefer having freedom to move anywhere without being tracked. Because of the few harsh elements that this initiative has, potential offenders are more likely to be prevented from committing similar offences. This is because they will fear being subjected to such conditions. This way, the initiative plays the prevention role. Where there are challenges in meeting this role, the traditional imprisonment suffices.
Community-based sentencing and rehabilitation
This is the core role of this initiative. Rehabilitation is the best way of curbing crime in the society. Simply put, the offender is guided to reform and become a better person in the society. They are given all reasons as to why they should become better persons in the society, and why they should not commit the offences in question. The traditional mode of imprisonment did not play this role perfectly. This is because offenders were constantly subjected to harsh conditions, making it impossible and difficult for them to learn. Because of the soft approach of the community-based sentencing approach, one is likely to reform quickly (Kremling, n.d.). The fact that all stakeholders are involved also makes it easy. As a matter of fact, this initiative seeks to promote understanding between the offender and victim. By gaining such understanding, chances of the offender reforming are very high as compared to all other mechanisms.
Community-based sentencing and incapacitation/ societal protection
Imprisonment helps cut off the links between the offender and the community. This gaps ensures that the offender is not in a position to commit further crime. The community-based sentencing initiative, to some extent, plays this role. Despite the fact that the offender is not subjected to harsh conditions, they are put in custody awaiting their reformation. During this time (albeit reduced), they are separated from the community. Another advantage of this is that they will come out of custody better persons (Kremling, n.d.). This has a positive impact on the protection of the society.
Community-based sentencing and denunciation/ Education
In any community, criminal punishment is seen as a mechanism through which offenders are taught to denounce their criminal habits. Many experts argue that this is akin to positive prevention. This initiative, as a matter of fact, concentrates on educating the offenders on why they should embrace positive living and why they should avoid committing crimes. When this is done effectively, the offenders end up becoming better members in the society (Doob, 2009). As such, this initiative supplements the prison system in teaching and educating offenders to be better people.
There is no doubt that this initiative either supplements or acts as an alternative to the imprisonment system. Because of its positive impact in the society, it should be adopted in other areas. Through this, the rate of crime will decrease significantly.
Assessing the effectiveness of this initiative in achieving community safety
In conclusion, the community-based sentencing in Canada has played a significant role in the justice system. Although this initiative is less established as compared to the imprisonment system, its effects have been felt. Not only has it led to decongestion in prisons, it has proved to be an effective mechanism in promoting community safety. Its rehabilitative process has, as a matter of fact, yielded more results. Because of this, the initiative should be promoted.
References
Demleitner, N. V. (2007). Editor's Observations: Crime and Sentencing in Canada: Parallels and Differences. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 9(5), 232-234. doi:10.2307/20639994
Doob, A. N., & Sprott, J. B. (2009). Changes in Youth Sentencing in Canada. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 11(5), 262-268. doi:10.2307/20640182
Kremling, J. (n.d.). Indeterminate Sentencing. Encyclopedia of Community Corrections. doi:10.4135/9781452218519.n83
Nurse, A. M. (2014.). Split Sentencing and Blended Sentencing. Encyclopedia of Community Corrections. doi:10.4135/9781452218519.n175
Stuart, B. (2006). Circle sentencing in Canada: A partnership of the community and the criminal justice system. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice,20(2), 291-309. doi:10.1080/01924036.1996.9678578
