by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
august 11, 2004
Last Friday, former NDP MP Svend Robinson pled guilty in a BC court to one count of theft over $5,000.
On a Friday in april, Robinson had gone to an auction where he "pocketed" a ring valued at $64,500. He spent the weekend pondering what to do and the next Tuesday he went down to the local to the RCMP detachment. The well-known Robinson had been identified on security cameras as the thief and it was only a matter of time before the police had contacted him. Shortly after the theft, a tearful Robinson held a press conference where he had admitted what he had done and announced that he was taking a leave of absence as the MP for Burnaby-Douglas to resolve his legal difficulties and his medical problems that arose from stress.
Robinson was granted a conditional discharge, placed on probation for a year with a term that he is to continue his counseling and was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. The effect of the discharge is that he was not "convicted" of the theft and although records of discharges are kept, that record can only be used in limited circumstances such as by the courts in any future criminal charges. Technically a discharge is not a criminal record.
In reporting the news of Robinson’s guilty plea and sentencing almost all of the media made reference to "jail". Examples of such headlines are "Svend spared any jail time", the National Post, "Judge spares Robinson jail sentence for theft", the Globe and Mail, and "Former MP avoids jail", the Calgary Sun. The reality was that Robinson was never looking at a jail term.
It is true, as the media loves to point out, that the maximum sentence for theft over $5,000 is 10 years in jail. But from a practical point of view there was a greater chance Robinson would have dropped dead on the courtroom floor than go to jail for his crime.
The media always point out maximum offences when they are reporting charges that someone is facing. Unless the maximum is mandatory as in the case of first degree murder, the maximum sentence has little application in reality. It is a principle of sentencing that maximum sentences are reserved for the worst offender and the worst offence. In that regard, Robinson wasn’t even close. and being a non-violent offence, the judge was bound to look at all the other alternatives before imposing a sentence of incarceration.
Robinson’s defense counsel argued for the discharge while the prosecutor argued for a conviction. The Crown was not asking for jail. While a judge is not bound by counsel are asking for, it would be a rare case where the judge would impose a harsher sentence that what the prosecution was asking for and only then if the Crown’s position was totally unreasonable. The positions taken by the lawyers were well within the appropriate range of sentencing for Robinson and the crime he committed and there was no reason why the judge would have exceeded what the Crown attorney was asking for.
The constant reference by the media to maximums does a disservice to readers and viewers. although sentencing can be criticized as generally being too lenient, by referring to maximum sentences that are imposed only in the rarest of circumstances it seems like the sentences that are handed out are much lighter than they actually are.
By constantly referring to Robinson avoiding a jail sentence, people are made to believe that he "avoided" jail because of who he is. The reality is that another person of similar age who had led a productive life and who had emotional problems that they had recognized by seeking help would not have gone to jail either.
The media should refrain from hyping up "jail" when there is no realistic chance that a custodial sentence will be imposed.