Empirical Analysis of Conditional Sentencing in British Columbia (From The Changing Face of Conditional Sentencing, P 73-84, 2000, Canada Department of Justice)

• NCJ Number: 194115
• Author(s): Dawn North
• Date Published: 2000
• Length: 12 pages
• Sale Source: Canada Department of Justice
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Conference Material
• Language: French; English
• Country: Canada
• Note: See NCJ-194108-114 for related chapters.

Annotation

This study provides an in-depth analysis of the use of conditional sentence orders in three specific court locations within British Columbia.

Abstract

Conditional sentence orders were designed as an alternative to incarceration and allow offenders to serve terms of imprisonment in the community. Three years of conditional sentencing data provided much needed information regarding the implementation of this sanction. There are, however, some obvious gaps to the need for reliable information regarding: (1) the optional conditions imposed; (2) the number, type, and judicial response to breaches; and (3) the relationship between the conditions imposed and the likelihood of breach. In 1998, judges in Vancouver Provincial Court imposed 466 conditional sentence orders; judges in Burnaby Provincial Court imposed 81 conditional sentence orders; and judges in Port Coquitlam Provincial Court imposed 67 conditional sentence orders. Overall, slightly less than half of the orders involved single charges. In all court locations the majority of conditional sentences were imposed for offenses against property. Of the specific offenses considered, the longest average sentences (conditional sentences only) were imposed on property offenses: break and enter, and fraud over $5,000. In terms of conditional sentence orders overall: 7 percent contained only the mandatory conditions; 53 percent contained from 1 to 3 optional conditions; 30 percent imposed from 4 to 6 optional conditions; and over 8 percent had more than 7 conditions. Conditional sentences were used primarily to achieve rehabilitative/treatment goals; then punitive/protection of public; then restorative/community. The overall breach rate for the 3 court locations was over 37 percent. Overall judicial responses to breach were: 37 percent of the conditional sentences were terminated; 27 percent resulted in amendments to the conditions; 18 percent of the sentences were suspended and a portion was served incarcerated; 13 percent resulted in no action; and 4 percent were dismissed. This study provides much needed feedback to the judiciary regarding the use of conditional sentences, factors that might increase the likelihood that an offender will breach, and the responses of other judges to specific kinds of breaches. 6 tables, 33 footnotes, appendix