The vast majority of Canadians and an even higher percentage of British Columbians believe that the sentences handed down by judges are too lenient, says a report prepared for the B.C. attorney general.
Seventy per cent of Canadians and 74 per cent of British Columbians believe that to be the case but the perception is not supported by the facts, said the report released Monday by B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal.
"What we really have to learn from their report is that the public looks to the judges, looks to the courts as a solution to the criminal problems that take part in our streets. Often it is the view of the public that if the judges impose longer sentences that would make our communities safer," Oppal told reporters in Victoria.
"The authors here are quite clear that that is not necessarily the case."
In fact the report, by criminologists Anthony Doob of the University of Toronto and Cheryl Marie Webster of the University of Ottawa, found that in some cases the sentences are harsher.
But the authors found that the public believes that sentences are too light and that judges could reduce crime if they handed out harsher sentences.
While a look solely at sentencing statistics would seem to support the notion, the authors said that is not the case upon closer inspection.
The "quick-fix" of harsher sentences does not bear out, the authors found.
A study of six specific offences showed that while B.C. had shorter mean and median sentence lengths than Canada as a whole, offenders in British Columbia were also more likely to go to prison.
It is appealing to believe that increased punishment decreases the likelihood of offending, said the authors, but the evidence does not support that.
That might be the case if offenders were thinking of consequences when they committed crimes and had an accurate view of what the penalty might be, and if they weighed the consequences and the likelihood of being caught. That is rarely the case.
In fact, the authors say crime rates have generally decreased in British Columbia and in Canada since the mid-1990s.
But police, politicians, media and some academics have reinforced the perception that crimes continue to occur because sentences are too light, the authors found.
And over the last several decades, that has contributed to the rise of a new law-and-order agenda, they said, that promotes harsh sanctions and mandatory minimum sentences as solutions to crime.
The Canadian public does want Parliament to give some guidance on sentencing, the authors found, but prefer a blend of guidance and discretion to mandatory minimum sentences.
Regardless of the results, the perception of the public should not be ignored, the authors warned.
Even if they are "largely uninformed, superficial, incomplete and, in some cases, misrepresented," those opinions should be acknowledged, the report suggested.
"The general public are ultimately looking for solutions to crime," the authors wrote.
They suggested changes to the way sentencing is carried out to make it more predictable and understandable, and more realistic in terms of what it can achieve.
Oppal said that what the report found is that the sentences have to fit the crime.
"This doesn't mean that the judges should not impose sentences that satisfy the principle of accountability. Every person still has to be accountable for their acts," Oppal said.
"I know that when a crime takes place our visceral reaction is to punish that offender to the maximum capacity that the law allows, however, there are a number of other factors that take into consideration."
With files from The Canadian Press
