section 737(1)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Offenders convicted of offences under the Criminal Code or Controlled Drugs and Substances Act must pay a victim surcharge alongside any other imposed punishment.

SECTION WORDING

737(1) Subject to subsection (5), an offender who is convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence under this Act or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act shall pay a victim surcharge, in addition to any other punishment imposed on the offender.

EXPLANATION

Section 737(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires offenders who are convicted of offences under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to pay a victim surcharge, in addition to any other punishment imposed. This surcharge is intended to compensate victims of crime and support programs that assist victims of crime, such as shelters and counselling services. The amount of the victim surcharge varies depending on the severity of the offence and the offender's financial means, and may range from $100 to $200 for summary offences and from $300 to $10,000 for indictable offences. The victim surcharge is important because it recognizes the harm that has been inflicted on victims of crime and ensures that they receive some measure of restitution and support. It also serves as a deterrent for offenders by imposing an additional financial penalty that they must consider when deciding whether or not to engage in criminal activity. However, the victim surcharge has been controversial in some cases, as it can impose a significant financial burden on offenders who are already facing other penalties, such as fines and prison sentences. Some critics argue that the victim surcharge is counterproductive, as it may exacerbate poverty and recidivism among low-income offenders who are unable to pay the surcharge. Despite these concerns, the victim surcharge remains an important component of the Canadian criminal justice system, as it recognizes the rights and needs of victims of crime and serves as a reminder to offenders that their actions have consequences beyond their own punishment. As such, it is considered to be a vital aspect of restorative justice and a key contributor to the overall health and well-being of Canadian society.

COMMENTARY

Section 737(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada has been controversial since its inception, as it mandates that offenders convicted or discharged under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act must pay a victim surcharge in addition to any other punishment imposed. The aim of the surcharge is to provide financial assistance to victims of crime and to support programs and services that help them to cope with the harm they have suffered. However, the implementation and administration of the surcharge have been subject to much criticism because of its impact on offenders, particularly those who come from disadvantaged and marginalized communities. The amount of the surcharge ranges from $100 to $200 for summary conviction offences, and from $300 to $1,000 for indictable offences, depending on the severity of the crime. The surcharge is automatically imposed at the time of sentencing, and failure to pay can result in additional fines, imprisonment or community service. The surcharge is collected by the court and is used to fund victim services programs provided by the provinces and territories. Although the idea of the victim surcharge appears to be a positive result, there are controversies surrounding its implementation and practicality. The imposition of the surcharge disproportionately affects marginalized communities, and there is a growing body of evidence that the surcharge can cause more harm than good. In particular, the surcharge has been criticized for creating additional financial hardship for low-income offenders and their families, who may already be struggling to meet their basic needs. The surcharge may also create financial barriers that could prevent offenders from accessing rehabilitation programs, which are essential to reducing the risk of reoffending. The impact of the surcharge on Indigenous communities is also of great concern. Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and their poverty and inequality reduce their ability to pay the surcharge. This highlights the disproportionate impact of the surcharge on Indigenous communities and raises questions of fairness and equality. Furthermore, the imposition of the surcharge can hinder the relationship between Indigenous communities and the criminal justice system. The imposition of the surcharge, with its associated enforcement, can be seen as another way that the state is punishing Indigenous peoples for existing, further marginalizing them and making them feel disconnected from the broader social fabric. In conclusion, although the victim surcharge is intended to provide support to victims of crime, its implementation has caused much controversy and criticism due to its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. The surcharge is detrimental to the rehabilitation process of offenders and can also have a lasting negative impact on their families and their communities. Therefore, it is crucial to reconsider the implementation of the victim surcharge and examine alternative modes of support for victims of crime that do not have negative effects and do not impose an undue financial burden on marginalized and disadvantaged communities in Canada.

STRATEGY

Section 737(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates the imposition of a victim surcharge on an offender who is convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offense under the Act or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The victim surcharge is in addition to any other punishment imposed on the offender. However, there are specific strategic considerations that must be taken into account when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. One significant consideration is the financial capacity of the offender to pay the victim surcharge. The imposition of the victim surcharge is mandatory, but it is crucial to consider the financial situation of the offender. This is because the offender may be unable to pay the victim surcharge, which may lead to the imposition of a civil judgment that cannot be enforced as the offender has no means to pay. Alternatively, it may lead to imprisonment or revocation of parole or probation for non-payment, which will result in further costs and strain on the criminal justice system. Another strategic consideration is to factor in the impact of the victim surcharge on the offender's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The imposition of a significant victim surcharge could impede the offender's ability to reintegrate into society, especially if they are experiencing financial difficulties. This could exacerbate any negative consequences of their offense and result in recidivism. Thus, it is necessary to consider the long-term implications of imposing a victim surcharge. Moreover, there is a need to ensure that the victim surcharge is not imposed in a manner that violates the principles of proportionality and fairness. It is unethical to impose a victim surcharge that is disproportionate to the offense and goes beyond the victim's actual loss. This could have a troubling impact on the offender's morale and trust in the justice system, which could be counterproductive. Therefore, the strategic consideration when dealing with section 737(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is to balance the victim's needs and the offender's capacity to pay while ensuring that the surcharge's imposition respects the principles of fairness and proportionality. Here are some strategies that could be employed: 1) Financial Assessment: To avoid imposing unrealistic victim surcharges, criminal justice professionals could undertake a financial assessment to determine the offender's ability to pay. This will reduce the likelihood of imposing a victim surcharge that the offender cannot afford and prevent unnecessary legal actions. 2) Community Sentencing: This involves imposing a community sentence instead of a fine to reduce the imposition of the victim surcharge. Community sentence is a restorative justice approach that allows for the offender to compensate the victim and society without imposing a financial burden on them. This approach also increases the possibility of the offender's successful reintegration into society. 3) Victim Impact Statements: This strategy allows the victim to present their case and explain the effect of the offense on their lives. This will enable the judges to impose a victim surcharge that adequately compensates the victim while giving consideration to the offender's circumstances. 4) Reduction of the Victim Surcharge: This approach involves reducing the victim surcharge to an extent that is fair and proportionate to the offense and the offender's financial situation. This will ensure that the offender does not suffer any undue hardship while ensuring that the victim is compensated. 5) Waiving of the Victim Surcharge: This approach involves waiving the victim surcharge if the offender's personal circumstances warrant it. This approach might be appropriate in cases where the offender is indigent, and imposing a victim surcharge could have a negative impact. In conclusion, section 737(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves to compensate the victims of crime but is subject to various strategic considerations. The consideration of the offender's financial capacity, rehabilitation, proportionality, and fairness is crucial to ensuring the effective and ethical imposition of the victim surcharge. Criminal justice professionals must employ strategies that consider all of these considerations to promote social justice and minimize unnecessary legal costs while maximizing the satisfaction of all parties.