This bill makes changes to Canada’s Criminal Code to give courts more flexibility when sentencing people for crimes. It allows courts to consider different punishment options rather than always following fixed minimum punishments. The bill also requires judges to explain their reasons when they decide to impose minimum punishments. It allows courts to delay sentencing so offenders can attend treatment or counseling programs, with the offender’s consent. Additionally, for first or second-degree murder cases, juries can now suggest how long the person must wait before being eligible for parole. The bill aims to make sentences more fair and to consider individual circumstances.
If someone commits a crime in Canada, this bill could affect their punishment. Courts will have more power to decide what is a fair sentence instead of always enforcing fixed minimum sentences. This means that a judge can choose a less severe penalty if they think it is fair for the situation, such as for someone who might be guilty but has special reasons that should affect their punishment. It also means that offenders might get a chance to attend treatment programs before sentencing, which could help prevent future crimes. For murder cases, juries can suggest how many years the offender should serve before they can apply for parole, rather than being legally required to serve a set number of years.
There is no publicly available information about the specific costs of this bill. Implementing the new rules could require courts to spend more time reviewing cases and writing explanations, which might increase administrative costs. Allowing delay of sentencing for treatment programs could also mean some initial costs for supervision and program management. Data on overall financial impact is unavailable.
Supporters of the bill say it makes the justice system more fair. Giving judges discretion helps prevent unfairly harsh punishments for people who might deserve lighter penalties. It can also improve the fairness of sentencing for women, Indigenous people, and individuals with mental health issues, who may be at risk of receiving overly severe sentences. Supporters believe that allowing offenders to attend treatment programs before sentencing can help reduce repeat crimes and support rehabilitation. They note that requiring judges to explain their reasons increases transparency and accountability in sentencing decisions.
Opponents argue that giving courts more discretion could make punishments less consistent and predictable. They worry this might lead to lighter sentences in cases that deserve longer penalties, potentially undermining public confidence in justice. Some critics believe that reducing minimum punishments could lead to increased crime or make punishments less clear for victims and their families. They also question whether courts have enough resources to carefully consider all options and write detailed reasons for their decisions, which could slow down the legal process. Data on how these changes will impact crime rates or public safety is unavailable.