The Meaning of "Short" Sentences of Imprisonment and Offences Against the Administration of Justice: A Perspective from the Court

The proliferation of relatively short sentences of imprisonment of 30 days or less in Canada is an under-researched topic. A close analysis of sentencing data suggests that administration of justice offences are the most common offence category addressed through custodial sentences of one to 15 days. The sentencing data suggest that the courts are responding to the seriousness of offences or a proportionality model. Beyond the quantitative analysis, however, very little is known about the purposes and meanings of these sentences to court players like judges and Crown prosecutors. The analysis focuses on accounts of judges and Crown prosecutors as meaning-makers in a 'courtroom workgroup' (Eisenstein and Jacob 1977), and attempts to understand their goals and values of imposing relatively short sentences of imprisonment for administration of justice offences within the contexts of existing literature, sentencing theories, and organizational grounds. I argue that existing theories of sentencing-particularly that Crown prosecutors and judges are responding to the severity of administration of justice offences and are meant to accomplish general deterrence or denunciation-may be insufficient explanations in understanding short periods of custody for these offences. The interviews and observations of plea negotiations reveal that future risk management and character-building are viewed as important goals and values by Crown prosecutors and judges. The study also demonstrates that the plea bargaining process should not be viewed separately from sentencing outcomes.