Research at a Glance: Diversion, Discretion, and Sentencing Commissions
Readers Note: This publication presents results of an online public opinion survey completed by a sample of Canadians who received an invitation through email, Facebook and Twitter (called an "open link" sample; see Method for more details). This survey mirrored a survey conducted with a representative sample of Canadians, the results of which are available at Research on Justice Issues
Most respondents believe that diversion of accused people from the courts, should be the preferred response in some types of offences/situations. They also believe that increased use of diversion could make the criminal justice system (CJS) more efficient and effective.
The majority of respondents believe that judges should have at least some degree of discretion and flexibility when deciding a sentence. Many respondents believe sentencing guidelines to be the best way to ensure a fair sentence and consistency in sentencing and though that a sentencing commission of which the most important function would be to give judges guidelines for sentencing decisions is important to consider.
Respondents to both the open link and nationally representative surveys support diversion to a similar degree. Compared to the representative sample of Canadians, respondents to open link survey are more supportive of full judicial discretion and less supportive of sentencing guidelines.
- Publisher - Current Organization Name: Department of Justice Canada
- Publisher - Organization Name at Publication: Department of Justice
- Licence: Open Government Licence - Canada
Data and Resources
Diversion, Discretion, and Sentencing CommissionsHTMLEnglish publication HTML
Diversion, Discretion, and Sentencing CommissionsPDFEnglish publication PDF
Diversion, Discretion, and Sentencing CommissionsHTMLFrench publication HTML
Diversion, Discretion, and Sentencing CommissionsPDFFrench publication PDF