Intermittent Sentence in Canada - The Law and Its Problems

• NCJ Number: 93105
• Journal: Canadian Journal of Criminology Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1984) Pages: 43-63
• Author(s): C F Dombek; M W Chitra
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 21 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: Canada

Annotation

This study reviews the case law on Canada's intermittent sentencing provision with a view to discussing the deficiencies of the concept from legal and administrative perspectives, and to presenting improvements.

Abstract

Canadian law provides a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding 90 days may be served intermittently at such times as are specified in a court order. Conditions are to be prescribed in a probation order for the period when the offender is not in confinement. The case law has had to deal with cases where the law specifies that an offense carries a minimum sentence of 3 'months' confinement, which, depending on the months involved, may exceed 90 days and thus make the offender ineligible for the intermittent sentence. The courts have had to exclude the use of intermittent sentences when a 3-month sentence exceeds 90 days. Confusion also exists as to whether the 90 days refers to actual confinement time or the total period over which both release and confinement time are served. The courts have taken the 90 days to refer to actual confinement time which is to be served over an indefinite period. The legislation could be improved by clarifying the issue of the 3-month intermittent sentence and by imposing a limit on the time within which any intermittent term can be served. A mechanism to vary the term of confinement once imposed should also be considered. To ensure that the extensive amount of release time has a purpose, attention must be given to the circumstances of the offender (whether employed, unemployed, or attending school). Alternative facilities for the serving of intermittent sentences should be examined, possibly using such residential facilities as halfway houses. The value of providing an intermittent sentence for an out-of-Province offender is questionable, since it would involve extensive travel time to and from the confinement facility. Ten references are provided.