No one should be punished because they go to trial. The state is supposed to have to prove that a person charged with a crime is guilty before that person can be punished. This is a long established, and one would think, dearly held principal. Still it is a principal which has been increasingly ignored. Suspensions of licenses, without trial, or proven cause has been the norm for many years. As of August 3, 2010, the provincial government of Ontario will add to this by formally establishing a different sentencing regime for those who plead guilty, rather than those who go to trial and are found guilty.

If you are charge with impaired driving or over 80 and plead guilty within 90 days of being charged you may be eligible for a sentence including a 90 day suspension followed by 9 months of driving in a vehicle with an ignition interlock device installed. If however you go to trial and are convicted the suspension period would be 6 months, if you are allowed the ignition interlock option. This formally establishes two different penalties for the same crime. The penalties differ only because of the exercising of a constitutional right.

There ought not to be penalties for exercising rights. You ought not to be fined for expressing an opinion. You ought not to be sentenced to twice as long in jail because you decided you wanted to call a lawyer. You ought not to have a greater penalty because you thought you should know what you are being charged with. It is not fair to demand a greater penalty, because you ask the crown to prove that you committed a crime.