Buying a Shorter Prison Term? Dangerous!

There were stories last week about a potential plea agreement in the shooting of Louise Russo.  Ms. Russo was shot unintentionally in what, by all accounts, was a targeted hit on another person.

The stories in the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail suggest that the four accused are negotiating a plea agreement that would include the payment of restitution of $1.5 million to Ms. Russo.  The inescapable assumption is that the accused will receive a lesser prison term as part of their sentence.

Let’s get the law out of the way.  The Criminal Code permits a judge to order restitution to victims of crime, including amounts for lost income as a result of bodily harm caused to a person.  It is also routine for parties to work out joint sentencing submissions as part of a plea bargain.

Restitution orders are common in cases of fraud, theft and vandalism.  They are not so common in cases of personal injury.  I don’t practice criminal law, bit it is unusual, I think, for a restitution order to get into seven figures. 

The way the media is playing it up, it appears that wealthy criminals can pay compensation to their unintended victims and get out of jail faster.  So, how much is a year in jail worth?  $1.5M, divided by four, divided by the number of years that they get shaved off their sentence in exchange for the restitution.  Unfortunately, we will likely never know the exact number of years.  I doubt the parties will ever tell us that.

The Crown is the big winner here as well.  They won’t have to imprison four men for as long and they won’t likely have to pay a claim to Ms. Russo through the Criminal Victims Compensation scheme. 

What if the four guys had (1) whacked the person they wanted to whack; (2) not wounded Ms. Russo; and (3) still been caught and facing certain conviction?  Would compensation paid to the victim’s family buy a few less years in jail?

How many soon-to-be convicted wannabe murderers have $1.5M laying around?  They must have paid a small fortune on their lawyers to date (they sure better not be getting Legal Aid if they have $1.5M).

When the story got leaked, everyone involved got upset.  That ought to tell you something.  Apparently, too much publicity might kill the deal.  Gee, if publicity causes a public outcry and a public outcry kills the deal, shouldn’t we be questioning the wisdom of the deal?

Do we want another infamous “Deal with the Devil”?

The whole thing causes me concern.  There are good and bad aspects of the rumoured deal and I’m not sure whether the good outweighs the bad.  What would help me make up my mind is an opportunity to know the terms and hear arguments from all sides.

Of course, if it was a win-win situation, why would all the parties want to keep it a secret until the deal is already done?