Pros And Cons Of Incarceration

An eye for an eye. The oldest laws crafted by ancient societies had binding punishments. As humanity matured, punishments became more lenient. Civilizations began compensating for the plethora of mitigating factors behind human behaviour. Today’s Governments have available to them alternatives to incarceration that better meet the goals of criminal punishment and rehabilitation. Mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) are now considered archaic by most of the world and condemned for their inability to account for the differences between individual cases. Professor Gabor raises the following criticism, “[t]he offender’s degree of culpability and role in the offence are ignored when sentencing is based exclusively on the nature of the infraction” (gabor
In Gainsborough and Mauer’s report on crime and incarceration in the 1990’s, they found “[d]uring the national decline in crime from 1991 to 1998, states with the largest increases in incarceration experienced, on average, smaller declines in crime than other states” (5, pg4). Despite the evidence, deterrence is still the most prevalent argument when Bills enforcing MMS are suggested. This mode of argumentation ignores the fact that certainty of punishment is a larger factor in deterring people from committing an offence. Strict sentences are unlikely to deter a person from committing a crime they believe they will get away with or whose judgement is compromised through substance abuse or mental health issues. As Dr. Wright from the Sentencing Project details, “[r]esearch to date generally indicates that increases in the certainty of punishment, as opposed to the severity of punishment, are more likely to produce deterrent benefits” (3). The deterrence argument is attenuated when you consider “juries are more reluctant to convict defendants they feel would face excessive punishment”(2 pg29), offsetting certainty of punishment. This highlights the contradiction of using deterrence as an argument for MMS. The application of harsh sentences diminish the primary driving force in deterring people from committing offences. Additionally, if the public is not aware
These sentences are often disproportional to the offences they commit. A landmark success for human rights in sentencing was made when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of MMS for drug offences in the case of R v. Dickey. The judge concluded, “[MMS legislation for drug offences] prescribe punishment that exceeds the constitutional limits set by the Charter… they mandate punishment that is grossly disproportionate to what an appropriate sentencing disposition can be in some circumstances” (R v. Dickey). A large portion of the offences carrying MMS, specifically drug offences, have the effect of targeting marginalized groups. Since the implementation of the Firearms Act, minorities have been disproportionately affected, none more than Aboriginal people. Professor Chartrand