Mandatory Minimum Sentences: A Utilitarian Perspective

By Gabor, Thomas | Canadian Journal of Criminology, July 2001 | Go to article overview

Mandatory Minimum Sentences: A Utilitarian Perspective

Gabor, Thomas, Canadian Journal of Criminology


The case of Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who killed his disabled daughter Tracy, has once again brought into focus the issue of mandatory minimum sentences (MMS). Latimer was twice convicted of second degree murder for what he claimed was a compassionate killing. His case culminated in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that the circumstances of the killing merited a constitutional exemption, under s.12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, from the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with ten years of parole ineligibility (Grant 2001). The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal that a life sentence, in his case, constituted cruel and unusual punishment on the basis that the planning and premeditation of the act, as well as his attempts at concealment and lack of remorse, overrode his dedication to Tracy and other mitigating factors.

Unlike previous cases, the Latimer appeal did not challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory sentence for murder; only the applicability of this sentence to his case. Nevertheless, the case brought into full view the fundamental dilemma associated with MMS; namely, that their predictable quality, which is said to afford their retributive and deterrent effects, also renders them inflexible and unduly harsh in cases where the offender's motives are not entirely dishonourable. Grant (2001) notes that our law currently has no defence available to those who can no longer cope with the suffering of a loved one.

The inflexibility of mandatory penalties for murder is of particular concern in another context; those instances in which an abused spouse kills her tormentor in a premeditated fashion. Such killings are usually prompted by credible threats against the life of the victim and/or her offspring. Presently, planned killings of this nature carry the same sentence as contract killings.

In Canada, over two dozen offences in the Criminal Code carry MMS, including first and second degree murder, a series of firearm-related offences, impaired driving and related offences, high treason, and gambling offences (Gabor and Crutcher 2001). In addition, over the last two years, Members of Parliament have introduced a number of private members' bills relating to such offences as residential break and enter, sexual assault and interference, as well as several additional firearms offences. In the United States, approximately 60 infractions carry mandatory penalties in the federal system alone (Gabor and Crutcher 2001).

Some criticisms leveled at mandatory sentences

A recent review of the scholarly literature conducted by this author revealed widespread skepticism in relation to these penalties. Most of this literature pertains to rather severe American legislation, such as some federal drug laws and the "Three Strikes" laws adopted first by California and, subsequently, by about one-half of all US states. As discussed below, these laws have been subject to fierce attacks on the basis of their questionable crime preventive benefits, fiscal and human costs, violation of proportionality in sentencing, disproportionate effects on minorities, and their encroachment upon judicial powers.

Scholars and advocates at a colloquium held earlier this year at York University were virtually unanimous in their condemnation of these sentences. The scope and intensity of the arguments levelled against MMS in this country are illustrated by the position taken by the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) (Cote, Majury, and Sheehy 2001).

   NAWL supports abolition of mandatory minimum prison sentences because they
   are ineffective; they do not achieve deterrence nor do they highlight the
   seriousness of the offence; they are contrary to principles of fundamental
   justice and equality; they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and
   lead to arbitrary imprisonment; they conflict with purposes and fundamental
   principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code; they undermine
   public accountability and increase the power of the Crown; they reduce the
   number of plea bargains and thereby increase the demands on court time;
   they intensify systemic racism; and they create pressure for an upward
   increase in the length of sentences of imprisonment. … 

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)


1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited article

Mandatory Minimum Sentences: A Utilitarian Perspective


Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.