Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T14:59:10.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategies of Governance and Canadian Sentencing Legislation, 1984-1997*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Ken Hatt
Ken Hatt
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Victoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines changes in Canadian sentencing legislation between 1984 and 1997 in relation to M. Foucault's genealogy of discursive practices. Foucault suggested three regulatory practices which were associated with contemporary projects of governmentality: punishment, discipline and risk management. The legislative changes regarding sentencing in court and conditional release decisions are reviewed to assess the extent to which the various regulatory practices have been adopted. It is suggested that Canadian sentencing discourse has become increasingly bifurcated around a combination of risk management and disciplinary strategies which are presented in a context of denunciation. The character of this arrangement and several of its anomalous features are examined.

Résumé

Cet article examine les changements dans la législation canadienne entre 1984 et 1997 en relation avec la généalogie des pratiques discursives de M. Foucault. Foucault proposait trois pratiques régulatrices associées à des projets contemporains: la punition, la discipline et la gestion du risque. Afin d'estimer dans quelle mesure les diverses pratiques régulatrices ont été adoptées, on passera en revue les changements législatifs concernant les condamnations ou les remises de peines conditionnelles. Il apparaît que le discours canadien tend à bifurquer vers une combinaison impliquant la gestion du risque et les stratégies disciplinaires présentées dans un contexte de dénonciation. On examinera les caractéristiques de cet arrangement ainsi que plusieurs anomalies qui en découlent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , Fall/automne 1999 , pp. 101 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Appendix I for a list of the bills and documents which have been reviewed in this study.

2. For descriptions of the general activity, see Roberts, J. V., “Sentencing in Canada: The context for reform” (1990) 36 Can. J. Crim. at 381Google Scholar; Roberts, J. V. & von Hirsch, A., “Sentencing Reform in Canada: Recent Developments” (1992) 23 Rev. Gén. Droit at 319Google Scholar. For commentary and critique, see in addition: Archibald, B. P., “Crime and Punishment: the Constitutional Requirements for Sentencing Reform in Canada” (1988) 22 R.J.T. at 307Google Scholar; Cole, D. & Manson, A., Release From Imprisonment: The Law of Sentencing, Parole and Judicial Review (Toronto: Carswell, 1990)Google Scholar; Jobson, K. & Ferguson, G., “Toward a Revised Sentencing Structure for Canada” (1987) 66 Can B. Rev. at 1Google Scholar; Jull, K., “Sentencing, Corrections and Conditional Release: Principles or a Penitentiary by Any Other Name?” (1991–1992) 34 Criminal Law Quarterly at 443Google Scholar; Lahey, K., “Review of Taking Responsibility, Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on its Review of Sentencing, Conditional Release and Related Aspects of Correction (1989) 21 Ottawa L. Rev. 553Google Scholar; Roberts, J.V. & von Hirsch, A., “Statutory Sentencing Reform: The Purpose and Principles of Sentencing” (1995) 37 Criminal Law Quarterly at 220Google Scholar; Scheid, D. E., “Constructing a Theory of Punishment, Desert, and the Distribution of Punishments,” (1997) 10 Can. J. of Law & Jur. at 441CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vanveen, W. L. & Mazer, B. M., “Sentencing” (1984) 16 Ottawa L. Rev. at 403Google Scholar; and an entire issue devoted to sentencing in the Can. J. Crim. (1990) 32:3. For a critical perspective, see Cohen, S., Visions of Social Control (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

3. Foucault, M., “Politics and the Study of Discourse” in Gordon, C. & Miller, P. eds., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991) 53 at 67–68Google Scholar.

4. Cited in Gordon, C., “Afterword” in Gordon, C., ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 (London: The Harvester Press, 1980) 229 at 245, 251–52Google Scholar.

5. There is no intent in this statement to minimize the impact of imprisonment and many of the practices associated with it on prisoners.

6. Foucault, M., Discipline and Punish (London: Peregrine, 1977) at 117–31Google Scholar.

7. Ibid. at 184–92.

8. Ibid. at 222.

9. Ibid. at 298.

10. Feeley, M. M. & Simon, J., “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications” (1992) 30 Criminology 450 at 441CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Foucault, supra, note 3 at 102; for a valuable exposition of this work, see Hunt, A., “Foucault's Expulsion of Law: Toward a Retrieval (1992) 17 Law and Social Inquiry at 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Ibid. at 254.

13. Ibid. at 293.

14. Rose, N., “Government, Authority and Expertise in Advanced Liberalism” (1993) 22 Econ & Soc. 283 at 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Bottoms, A. E., “An introduction to ‘The Coming Crisis” in Bottoms, A. E. & Preston, R. H., The Coming Penal Crisis: A criminological and theological exploration (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1980) at 1Google Scholar; Bottoms, A. E., “Limiting Prison Use: Experience in England and Wales” (1987) 26 Howard Journal at 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bottoms, A. E., “Reflections on the renaissance of dangerousness” (1977) 16 Howard Journal at 70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. Ratner, R. S., “Bilateral Legitimation: The Parole Pendulum” in McCormick, K. R. E. & Visano, L. A., eds., Canadian Penology: Advanced Perspectives and Research (Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 1992) at 1Google Scholar.

17. J. Donzelot, “Pleasure in Work” in G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller eds., supra note 1 at 251; Simon, J., “The Emergence of a Risk Society: Insurance, Law, and the State” (1995) Socialist Rev. at 61Google Scholar; and M. M. Feeley & J. Simon, supra note 10 at 441.

18. Foucault, supra note 3 at 102–03.

19. O'Malley, P., “Risk, Power and Crime Prevention” (1992) 21 Econ. and Soc. at 251CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Ibid. at 256-57.

21. Ibid. at 261.

22. Gordon, supra note 3 at 254.

23. Ibid. at 251.

24. Reed, M. and Roberts, J., “Adult Correctional Services in Canada, 1997-98” (1999) 19: 4Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics at 6Google Scholar.

25. The Criminal Law in Canadian Society (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1982)Google Scholar.

26. Ibid. For an extensive discussion of these elements in Bill C-41, see Roberts and von Hirsch (1995), supra note 2.

27. Ibid. Roberts and von Hirsch make a strong argument for the use of a deserts model which will provide a simpler and clearer formulation as well as avoiding the complication of utilitarian considerations in judicial sentencing decisions.

28. Government of Canada, Press Release for Bill C-36, undated.

29. Government of Canada, Press Release for Bill C-55, undated.

30. Bottoms, supra at note 15.

31. Ratner, supra at note 16.

32. Hatt, K., Caputo, T. & Perry, B., “Managing Consent: Canada's Experience with Neoconservatism” (1990) 17 Soc. Just. 30Google Scholar; and “Criminal Justice Policy Under Mulroney: Neo-Conservatism, Eh?” (1992) Can. Pub. Pol. 245Google Scholar.

33. Hatt, K., “Probation and Community Corrections in a NeoCorrrectional Era” (1985) 25 Can. J. Crim. 299 at 302–04Google Scholar.

34. Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice: Corrections Population Growth (not documented, May, 1996) at 4–10Google Scholar.

35. Government of Canada, Report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission: Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1987) [Hereinafter Sentencing Reform]Google Scholar.

36. Ibid. at 147-51.

37. Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on its review of sentencing, conditional release and related aspects of corrections: Taking Responsibility (Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Center, Supply and Services, Canada, 1988) at 45 [Hereinafter Taking Responsibility]Google Scholar. See also Report for Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice, supra note 24.

38. The Church Council on Justice and Corrections, Satisfying Justice: Safe Community Options that attempt to repair harm from crime and reduce the use or length of imprisonment (Ottawa: The Church Council on Justice and Corrections and Correctional Service of Canada, 1996)Google Scholar.

39. Supra note 37 at 245-68.

40. Ibid.

41. Predicting General Release Risk for Canadian Penitentiary Inmates (1992-007) by Hann, R. G. & Harman, W. G. (Ottawa: Corrections Research and Programs Development, Ministry of the Solicitor General Secretariat, 1992) at 121–24Google Scholar.

42. Government of Canada, News Release “Solicitor General Announces Action on High-Risk Offenders” (10 March 1995).

43. Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, C-46, s. 718.1.

44. Archibald, supra. note 2 at 341.

45. Sentencing Reform, supra note 18 at 142.

46. The notion of denunciation as an objective in sentencing was first proposed by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in 1974. Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Principles of Sentencing and Dispositions (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974) at 33Google Scholar.

47. Elaboration and evidence on this point and the relations between the three practices has been further developed in a yet unpublished paper, “The Neoliberal Reconstruction of Justice”, which is available from the author.

48. Gordon, supra note 3; Bottoms, supra note 15; Ratner, supra note 16; Rose, supra note 13.