Le voile de l’ignorance dans la détermination des sentences

Abstract

While the majority of inmates serve only part of their sentence in prison, the appeal courts recommend that criminal trial courts not take this fact into account. This article examines the reasons why members of the judicial system choose or do not choose to impose sentences from behind a veil of ignorance with respect to parole practices and considers the impact of that choice on the severity of the prison sentences at issue. The results of this survey of a sample of members of the judiciary (judges, defence and crown attorneys, and probation officers) indicate that the veil of ignorance doctrine contributes to reducing differences in points of view as to what sentence is appropriate. A second factor that contributes to resolving disagreements during sentencing deliberations is that those who participate are often ready to accommodate different sentencing preferences if the differences from their own sentencing choice are within a coefficient of variation of 50%. The survey calls into question the theory of the Archambault Commission (1997), according to which the veil of ignorance doctrine would be an a priori disadvantage to delinquents condemned to serve a prison sentence.