Community-Based Sentencing: The Perspectives of Crime Victims
Executive Summary
Purpose of Report
This project was designed to explore crime victims' perceptions and experiences with respect to community-based sentencing. The report describes findings from a preliminary examination of community-based sanctions from the perspective of the crime victim. It contains a review of relevant sociological research involving crime victims, as well as a review of relevant caselaw.
Methodology
Interviews were conducted with victims in personal injury cases in which a community sanction had been imposed (usually a conditional sentence of imprisonment (CSI)). In order to supplement this information, interviews were also conducted with Crown counsel. The interviews took place in Ottawa and Toronto and were facilitated by personnel from the Victim/ Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). All victims had been involved in cases in which a community sanction, usually a conditional sentence of imprisonment, had been imposed. The crimes represented a wide range of offences, including sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm. In the most serious cases the victims had sustained very serious, irreversible injuries. Discussions focused on a number of issues relating to victims' perceptions and experiences with respect to sentencing.
Key Findings
The victims who participated in this study were not uniformly opposed to the concept of community-based sentencing or conditional sentencing. Several individuals felt that a conditional sentence could be effective if it was tough enough and if it was adequately enforced. Throughout our conversations with crime victims, it was clear that there was an acceptance of the concept of community based sentencing. However, it was equally apparent that for this group of individuals, this acceptance does not extend to include the most serious crimes of violence. For these crimes, the seriousness of the offence appeared to warrant a custodial term in the eyes of the victims.
Not surprisingly, many victims found the criminal process, including the sentencing phase, to be confusing. In terms of information about the sanction imposed, almost all the victims had received a copy of the probation or conditional sentence order, almost always by mail. Only two had received a copy of the reasons for sentence, but the victims were unanimous in their desire to have both documents. However, although most participants had received the court order, almost all found it confusing. Several individuals brought copies of the conditional sentence order to the interviews. Reviewing these orders, it was easy to see why the victims were baffled about the nature and conditions of the order. Several orders were missing critical pieces of information.
With the exception of two individuals, all the victims reported being satisfied with their contact with Crown counsel. The Crown counsel to whom we spoke confirmed that whenever possible, they consulted the victim with respect to conditions that might be suggested to the court in sentencing submissions. All the victims to whom we spoke were positive about the support that they had received from VWAP personnel. Most had contact with the same individual, and clearly had confidence in the information and support that they had received.
Several victims remarked upon the laxity of the curfew restriction imposed on the offender in their case. For example, in one case the offender had a 9pm to 6am curfew, which the victim perceived as being not appreciably different from the life of the average citizen, and therefore not a "punishment condition". Perhaps the most troubling "house arrest" condition emerging from the study was one in which the offender was restricted to his house or his cottage for certain hours. According to the victim, the offender had spent most of the time at his cottage entertaining friends, and that this had coloured her perception of the sentence. Non-compliance with conditions, or the perception that the offender had failed to comply with conditions clearly disturbed a number of victims.
A review of reported judicial decisions on conditional sentence demonstrated no consistent trends in considering victim interests. Some decisions include conditions that there be no contact with the victim. Some found victim support for a community sentence to be a factor that helped justified the sentence while others concluded that such support did not accord with a concern for the victim's continued safety. Very few reported cases contained conditions that provided acknowledgment of and reparation for the harm done to the victim; a few cases did require apologies to be made to the victim and some kind of reparation either to the victim or to organizations that provided services for similarly situated victims.
Future Directions
The report concludes with a number of suggestions with respect to the interests of crime victims in personal injury cases resulting in the imposition of a conditional sentence or other community-based sentence. It is important that victims be provided with more information about:
- the nature of the sanction in general (e.g., the nature and purpose of a conditional sentence or a term of probation);
- the court's reasons for imposing the specific community-based sanction. This should include the important sentencing factors considered by the judge;
- the specific conditions imposed on their offender;
- the consequences for the offender if he breaches a condition of the order;
- any violations of the order resulting in a breach hearing, whether these violations pertain to the victim or not;
- the final outcome of the order (i.e., whether the offender successfully completed the order, or having violated a condition, was committed to custody);
- greater attention should be paid to crafting conditions that acknowledge and provide reparation for harms done to victims. In cases where fines are appropriate, consideration should be given to whether financial compensation to the victim will better serve the restorative objectives of sentencing.
Conclusion
Research on conditional sentencing suggests that only a small percentage of conditional sentences are imposed for serious crimes of violence. Nevertheless, when such a sentence is imposed in these cases, the consequence is often to increase the suffering of the crime victim, whatever the benefits for the offender. Some of this suffering could be addressed by conditions that the offender not have contact with the victim, but these conditions must be explained to the victim and enforced.
- Date modified: