The «public interest» includes «a consideration of the principle of
general deterrence with attention being paid to the gravity of the offence, its incidence in the community, public attitudes towards it and public confidence in the effective enforcement of the criminal law.»
Not exact matches
Accused went to cottage of JC
with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC
with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific
deterrence or
general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual
with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.
I'm not slighting the tragedy that resulted in charges but, given what happened in Metron and why — all you need to do is read paras. 1 — 15, particularly paras. 9 - 15 — do you agree
with the
general deterrence rationale?
We agree
with the government that the sentence is unreasonable and that it did not give adequate consideration to the seriousness of the offense, the need for
general deterrence for white - collar crimes, and the need for some imprisonment.
It requires balancing
general deterrence (and, relatedly, incapacitation) by a relatively long prison term
with specific
deterrence (and its other aspect, rehabilitation) by a relatively short term in prison.
«Insurers may well wish to deploy the tort
with a view to heightening
general deterrence of fraudulent claims»
However, the experience in relation to Hayward and Direct Line Group Plc, discussed above, shows that that may not necessarily be the case and, in any event, insurers may well wish to deploy the tort
with a view to heightening
general deterrence of fraudulent claims.
Payne's book in a nutshell: 1) politicians and most senior officials operate
with the belief that there is a dependable «rational» basis for successful
deterrence in which «rational» US opponents will respond prudently and cautiously to US nuclear
deterrence threats; 2) the re-evaluation of nuclear strategy in expert circles since the Cold War exposes the deep flaws of Cold War thinking in
general and the concept of «rational»
deterrence in particular (partly because strategy was dangerously influenced by ideas about rationality from economics).