Community-Based Sentencing: The Perspectives of Crime Victims

7. Conclusion

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 [1]. It must be recalled that the participants in this study are not representative of all crime victims; our participants had been the victims of the more serious crimes of violence, often involving sexual aggression. 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.

We have not taken the position in this report that a conditional sentence should never be imposed in a case involving violence. This determination remains in the discretion of the sentencing judge - a point made by the Supreme Court when it rejected the position that certain offences should be excluded from the conditional sentence regime. However, it is clear from interviews with crime victims and professionals who have contact with victims, that when a conditional sentence is imposed in such cases, the interests and needs of the victim need to be given greater consideration from the court, and from the justice system in general. At the very least, careful attention must be given to the victim's security concerns by appropriately crafted no contact conditions.

At the same time, we believe that the system could in many cases do a better job of making real the emphasis given in the 1996 sentencing reforms to the restorative sentencing purposes of providing acknowledgment and reparation of the harms suffered by victims. This requires not only much more information and after care for crime victims, but also more attention to how conditions in community sanctions can serve the legitimate interests of victims in reparation and acknowledgment of harm.

[1] Although the victims did not use the word "denunciation", this would appear to be the sentencing goal that they saw as being frustrated by the imposition of a conditional sentence. This position is consistent with the judgment in R. v. Proulx, wherein the Supreme Court noted that: "Where objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, incarceration will be the preferred sanction."; at para 127.