Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reconsidering Penal Stability in Canada Through a New Sentencing Severity Index

  • Published:
International Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Changes to criminal sentencing practices are often multifaceted and complex to interpret. This article proposes the development of a new sentencing severity index which simultaneously considers the type of punishment mobilized as well as the scale of that punishment. It does so in the context of important reforms to Canadian sentencing, examining the possibility of a punitive turn in Canadian criminal justice through this new index. Data were drawn from Canadian adult criminal courts collected through Statistics Canada’s Integrated Criminal Court Survey between 2005/2006 and 2016/2017. The analysis is based on instances where either custody or probation were the primary sentence of a case. We show that the underlying makeup of Canadian sentencing has changed over time. Custodial sentences are more frequent, but shorter, while probation sentences are fewer, but longer overall. However, in combining these dimensions (frequency and length), the index suggests that overall sentencing severity remained generally stable. Nevertheless, considerable changes across offence type and jurisdictions were observed. The article points to the importance of nuancing the assessment of penal practices with multiple parameters to better understand penal reform and transformation. The new index provides a tool which helps to do so.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The dataset used in this project is not currently available to the public. We accessed this data through a pilot project with Statistics Canada. Nevertheless, many tables using the Integrated Criminal Court Survey are available online through Statistics Canada, and custom statistics can be requested from the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics. It is hoped that this dataset will be made available through Statistics Canada in the future.

Notes

  1. Though speaking of aggregate trends, the authors do not suggest that such trends are applicable in every place and time. Diverse is the literature variegating understandings of penal populism and punishment (see Garland (2018), or Rubin and Phelps (2017)).

  2. Recent trends suggest that this is changing (Campbell et al., 2020; Steiker & Steiker, 2020). Nevertheless, they continue to have the largest penal population in the world.

  3. In Canada, this most obviously implicates both federal and provincial or territorial governments as well as the unelected judiciary, government-funded prosecutors, and Legal Aid Defence lawyers, as well as private defence attorneys among many others.

  4. The analysis presented in this paper was conducted at the Quebec Interuniversity Centre for Social Statistics which is part of the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN). The services and activities provided by the QICSS are made possible by the financial or in-kind support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Statistics Canada, the Fonds de recherche du Québec and the Quebec universities. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the CRDCN, the QICSS or their partners.

  5. Crude sentencing rates were calculated using the following equation:

    \(Crude \, Sentencing \, Rate = 1000\left( \frac{D}{P} \right)\)

    Where D represents the number of sentences issued for a given sentence type, P the total number of guilty cases. This measure is deemed “crude” because it does not account for variation in the distribution of offence types over the observation period. This measure is equivalent to the crude death rate used in the field of demography (e.g., Rowland, 2003, p. 33).

  6. Standardized sentencing rates were calculated using the following equation:

    \(Standardized \, Sentencing \, Rate = \mathop \sum \limits_{j} \left[ {\left( {\frac{{D_{j}^{B} }}{{P_{j}^{B} }}} \right)*\left( {\frac{{P_{j}^{A} }}{{P^{A} }}} \right)} \right]*1000\)

    Where D represents the number sentences issued for a given sentence type, P the number of guilty cases, A represents the year of reference and B the year of interest, and j the offence type. This measure is equivalent to the standardization of crude death rate (i.e., direct standardization) used in the field of demography (Rowland, 2003, p. 125).

  7. The contribution of the compositional effect on crude rate differences can be determined through a process known as decomposition. Decomposition is calculated using the following equation:

    \(Decomposition = \mathop \sum \limits_{j} \left( {C_{j}^{B} - C_{j}^{A} } \right)*\left[ {\frac{{M_{j}^{B} + M_{j}^{A} }}{2}} \right] + \mathop \sum \limits_{j} \left( {M_{j}^{B} - M_{j}^{A} } \right)*\left[ {\frac{{C_{j}^{B} + C_{j}^{A} }}{2}} \right]\)

    Where C represents the composition (i.e., the proportion of the total number of guilty cases), M represents the sentencing rate (i.e., number of sentences issued for a given sentence type over the total number of guilty cases), A represents the period of reference, B represents the period of interest, and j represent the offence type. The section of the equation to the right of the main addition sign represents the contribution of the compositional effect. The section of the equation to the left of the main addition sign represents the contribution of the actual rate change. For more details on decomposition, see Das Gupta (1978).

  8. Notably, this does not include simple drug possession.

  9. We acknowledge that for “other sexual offences”, the ASSI had been increasing before the introduction of Bill C-10. However, these offences were subject to a first wave of mandatory minimum penalties following the election of the Harper government in 2005. The changes in Bill C-10 continued this trajectory. Further, the ASSI for “other drug offences” was also increasing prior to Bill C-10. Notably, however, the ASSI had begun to decrease slightly before increasing dramatically upon the introduction of the bill.

References

  • Audesse, A. (2019). Dérives et misères populistes: analyse des politiques pénales érigées, modifiées et abrogées sous le gouvernement de Stephen Harper, 2006–2015. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11794/33748

  • Audesse, A., & Martel, J. (2020). L’architecture singulière du populisme pénal. Champ Pénal, 19, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.4000/champpenal.11931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Prisoners in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/prisoners-australia/latest-release

  • Beckett, K. (1997). Making crime pay: Law and order in contemporary American politics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M., Schoenfeld, H., & Vaughn, P. (2020). Same old song and dance? An analysis of legislative activity in a period of penal reform. Punishment & Society, 22(4), 389–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheliotis, L. K. (2006). How iron is the iron cage of new penology? The role of human agency in the implementation of criminal justice policy. Punishment and Society, 8(3), 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comack, E., & Silver, J. (2008). A Canadian exception to the punitive turn? Community responses to policing practices in Winnipeg’s Inner City. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 33, 815–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das Gupta, P. (1978). A general method of decomposing a difference between two rates into several components. Demography, 15(1), 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A. N. (2012). Principled sentencing, politics, and restraint in the use of imprisonment: Canada’s break with its history. Champ pénal, 9, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4000/champpenal.8335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A. N., & Webster, C. (2003). Sentence severity and crime: accepting the null hypothesis. Crime and Justice, 30, 143–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A. N., & Webster, C. (2006). Countering punitiveness: Understanding stability in Canada’s imprisonment rate. Law & Society Review, 40(2), 325–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A. N., & Webster, C. (2016). Weathering the storm? Testing long-standing Canadian sentencing policy in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 45(1), 359–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, J., Flemming, R. B., & Nardulli, P. F. (1999). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Little, Brown, and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2018). Theoretical advances and problems in the sociology of punishment. Punishment & Society, 20(1), 8–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, R., Webster, C. M., & Doob, A. N. (2009). Trends in the Imprisonment of Women in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 51(2), 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P., Page, J., & Phelps, M. (2017). Breaking the pendulum: The long struggle over criminal justice. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, S. (2016). Constructing the durable penal agent: Tracing the development of habitus within English probation officers and Scottish criminal justice social workers. British Journal of Criminology, 56(4), 750–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, M., & Roberts, J. V. (1999). Sentencing trends in Britain: Public knowledge and public opinion. Punishment & Society, 1(1), 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, D., & Jackson, A. L. (2010). On the politics of imprisonments: A review of systematic findings. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6(1), 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landreville, P. (2007). Grandeurs et misère de la politique pénale au Canada: Du réformisme au populisme. Criminologie, 40(1), 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc, C., Vacheret, M., Côté-Lussier, C., & Noreau, P. (2020). Virage punitif au Canada : Élargissement du filet pénal et développement de pratiques d’évitement des nouvelles lois. In V. Denault (Ed.), La science au service de la pratique: enquêtes, procès et justice (pp. 371–394). Éditions Yvon Blais: Cowansville, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc. (In press). La boîte noire des tribunaux: les difficultés à comprendre, à mesurer et à améliorer les pratiques judiciaires. Revue de droit de l’Université de Sherbrooke, 51.

  • McNeil, F., Burns, N., Halliday, S., Hutton, N., & Tata, C. (2009). Risk, responsibility and reconfiguration: Penal adaptation and misadaptation. Punishment & Society, 11, 419–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & O’Malley, P. (2011). Missing the punitive turn? Canadian criminal justice, ‘balance’, and penal modernism. In J. Pratt, D. Brown, M. Brown, S. Hallsworth, & W. Morrison (Eds.), The New punitiveness (pp. 227–243). London: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neil, R., & Carmichael, J. T. (2015). The use of incarceration in Canada: A test of political and social threat explanations on the variation in prison admissions across Canadian provinces, 2001–2010. Sociological Inquiry, 85(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, P. (2006). Mondialisation et justice criminelle: Du défaitisme à l’optimisme. Déviance Et Société, 30(3), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, M. S. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1), 51–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, M. S. (2017). Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment. Punishment & Society, 19, 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pires, A. (2013). Réflexions critiques sur la sociologie de la punition à partir de l’ouvrage de Tom Daems. Déviance Et Société, 37, 131–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. (2002). Punishment and civilization: Penal tolerance and intolerance in modern society. SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. (2007). Penal populism. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Puddister, K. (2021). How the Canadian sentencing system impacts policy reform: An examination of the Harper era. Law & Policy, 43(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, A. A. (2017). The (differential) utilization of conditional sentences among aboriginal offenders in Canada. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 22(2), 133–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, D. T. (2003). Demographic methods and concepts. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, A., & Phelps, M. S. (2017). Fracturing the Penal State: State actors and the role of conflict in Penal change. Theoretical Criminology, 21(4), 422–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprott, J. B., Webster, C. M., & Doob, A. N. (2013). Punishment severity and confidence in the criminal justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55(2), 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2022). Table 35-10-0027-01: Adult criminal courts, number of cases and charges by type of decision. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510002701

  • Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2020). The rise, fall, and afterlife of the death penalty in the United States. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stobbe, M. J. (2018) Was Stephen Harper really though on crime? A systems and symbolic action analysis. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10388/11205

  • Sturge, G. (2021). UK prison population statistics. Retrieved from https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf

  • Tonry, M. (2006). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2014). Why crime rates are falling throughout the western world. Crime and Justice, 43(1), 1–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, R. (2015). World prison population list (11th ed.). Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, C. M., & Doob, A. N. (2007). Punitive trends and stable imprisonment rates in Canada. Crime and Justice, 36, 297–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, C. M., & Doob, A. N. (2015). US punitiveness ‘Canadian Style’? Cultural values and Canadian punishment policy. Punishment and Society, 17, 299–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, C. M., Sprott, J. B., & Doob, A. N. (2019). The will to change: Lessons from Canada’s successful decarceration of youth. Law & Society Review, 53(4), 1092–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2010). A global perspective on incarceration: How an international focus can help the United States reconsider its incarceration rates. Victims and Offenders, 5(3), 268–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinger, I. (2016). Human rights and federal corrections: A commentary on a decade of though on crime policies in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58, 609–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Rémi Boivin and Jose Pina-Sánchez for their insightful feedback and comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Funding

This work is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) (435-2017-0759).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, McGill University, 845 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, Québec, H3A 0G4, Canada

    Jean-Denis David

  2. School of Criminology, University of Montreal, 3150 Jean-Brillant Street, Montréal, Québec, H3T 1N8, Canada

    Chloé Leclerc & Brendyn Johnson

Authors
  1. Jean-Denis David
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chloé Leclerc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brendyn Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Denis David.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

David, JD., Leclerc, C. & Johnson, B. Reconsidering Penal Stability in Canada Through a New Sentencing Severity Index. Int Criminol 3, 26–37 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-023-00080-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-023-00080-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation