Truth In Sentencing

Decent Essays
The second supporting argument that Parliament imposes the judiciary to place too much emphasis on incarceration is characterized by the reduction of credit for pre-sentence custody credit. Fortunately, this was amended in 2014. The Truth in Sentencing Act, one of the government’s early “tough on crime” laws was passed in 2009, but became operative on Feb. 22, 2010. This Act contributed to the changes regarding the credit offenders received for pre-sentence detention or “dead-time,” that does not count towards any parole or early release eligibility. This curbed judge’s ability to give a break on sentencing when a convicted offender has spent lengthy time in pre-trial jail custody. This discount in sentencing had evolved to recognize that…show more content…
22, 2010, when the government banned the double credit, Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, predicted that the new approach would cost the federal and provincial governments as much as $5-billion a year by 2015-16. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General Nicholson’s statement on Second Reading of Bill C-25, or the Truth in Sentencing Act, criticizes judicial competency in our criminal courts. He uses the phrase, “generous credit for pre-sentence custody” four times, and links it to, “eroding public confidence in the integrity of the justice system.” That means that the judges, collectively, have been eroding public confidence in the justice…show more content…
719(3) of the Criminal Code stated: “In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence.” Double credit first originated in Toronto due to the apparent ‘deplorable conditions’ in Toronto’s pre-trial custody facilities. They were then and may still be ‘desperately overcrowded with rife with violence and disease.’ Consequently, Bill C-25 will disproportionately affect the poor who are unable to “make bail.” The Bill may be seen as contrary to both section 12 and 7 of the Charter, by preventing judges from giving adequate compensation for lengthy delays under conditions below standards set by the United Nations respectively. Therefore Bill C-25 will inevitably produce longer sentences. However, there is evidence to believe that longer sentences do nothing to deter crime. One recent study suggests that inmates who serve longer sentenced are in fact more likely to reoffend when they are released. In addition, the probability of the loss of “liberty and security without fundamental justice” is increased by the reduction of sentencing
Get Access