It creates a fraud of sorts. If they feel a person should get a conditional sentence but is technically ineligible and therefore they proceed differently, with let's say a summary offence, or they reduce the charge, whether it's done in court or it's done by the crown, you end up with the same people rationalizing that the defence was different from what it really was. Instead of being able to take the case as it stands, have it presented in court with the harm that was done and responsibility, everything begins to be shaded to predict the outcome that's been decided. The less the legal process is in the open--and courts are in the open--and is put into the backrooms of prosecutors and offices of the judges and so on, the less the public will ever understand sentencing.
It is very complex. I agree with the other witnesses that it's very complicated, and also I agree that what the public hears is a very slim slice of it. But in the end, I cannot believe that confidence in criminal justice will be enhanced by a system that's not transparent.