The data suggests that the use of
conditional sentences has affected the
proportion of probation orders more than
admissions to custody, This suggests that
conditional sentencing legislation may not
be having the desired impact of reducing

reliance on incarceration in sentencing.34

Initial application of this sentencing option by
the courts primarily affected community
corrections and had a minimum impact on jail
counts. In January 2000, the Supreme Court of
Canada ruled on five conditional sentencing
cases. In response to R. v. Proulx, the Supreme
Court established guidelines for interpreting the
legal provisions of conditional sentence.* A
year later, the Corrections Branch made
electronic monitoring an option in the
supervision of conditional sentences.

Traditionally, lower-risk offenders were placed
on electronic monitoring to support the
temporaty absence program. The introduction
of risk-based supervision standards revealed
that these offenders were more intensively
supervised than higher risk offenders (1.e. one
staff member per six offenders on electronic
monitoring compared to one staff member per
90 offenders on other forms of community
supervision).

With the adoption of supervision standards, it
no longer made sense to supervise low-risk
offenders with electronic monitoring.*° By the
end of the year 2000, electronic monitoring was
eliminated for temporary absences. Beginning
in January 2001, sentenced offenders were only
eligible for electronic monitoring if the court
ordered its application as part of a conditional
sentence.” The B.C. Parole Board also used it
as a condition of day and full parole.

In British Columbia, a rapid increase in
conditional sentences and reduction of jail
sentences followed the Proulx decision and
redirected use of electronic monitoring. By
December 2001, the number of offenders
serving a conditional sentence exceeded 2,000.
At the time of the court ruling on R. v. Proulx,
this caseload was less than 1,300.

Branch policy directed probation officers to
give more attention to conditional sentence
orders than to probation orders. However,
additional resources to supervise conditional
sentences were not forthcoming. In addition,
offenders on conditional sentence had higher
levels of risk to reoffend than offenders on
probation. Without more treatment and
rehabilitative support, these offenders were also
more likely to breach conditions and be
sentenced to jail.

34 Management Report No. 2000:02, Corrections Branch, p. 2.

35 “The Proulx decision affirms that the purpose of conditional sentencing is to reduce reliance on incarceration
and increase the use of restorative justice principles. It was also stated that conditional sentences can provide
significant denunciation and deterrence. This sentencing option is preferable to incarceration when punitive and
rehabilitative objectives can be achieved.” (Excerpt from Conditional Sentencing Pre and Post R. v. Proulx
Decision, Management Report No. 2000:02, November 2000, Corrections Branch.)

36 As an intensive supervision strategy, electronic monitoring was viewed as more effective for higher-risk
offenders under community supervision. Research shows that there is no difference in rates of reoffending
when low-risk offenders are placed under community supervision with electronic monitoring, compared to

community supervision without electronic monitoring,

37 ADM Directives 2000:10 and 2000:10a.

258

Corrections in British Columbia