Juvenile Offenders And The United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child

The Australian criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique strategies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. Even though young offenders commit a higher percentage of crime compared to adults, young offenders also have the highest likelihood to be rehabilitated and change their lifestyle as they mature, resulting in a lower court appearance percentage due to the different rights children have.

Young offenders are recognised under the law to have a different level of responsibility and vulnerability to adult offenders. This creates tension in the community, as when children are not protected in criminal procedures, their rights are not upheld. This is demonstrated in R V Phung and Huynh [2001] NSWSC 115, where the accused was detained without the contact of his guardian of choice for over several hours, was not consulted on whom he preferred as a support person and was not given a lawyer. This creates tension as the child did not receive the criteria assigned under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) and was without a legal representative, defying the fairness of his case. However, the judge deemed the evidence provided from interviews as inadmissible due to his rights being denied. The courts attempt to prevent the tension from the community by using the judge’s discretion in determining what evidence is

Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how

There have been many studies conducted that examine ways in which the juvenile justice system responds to female offenders. Historically juvenile female offenders have been treated under status offense jurisdiction (Zahn et al., 2010, p. 10). United States Courts would exercise the principle of “parens patriae” to place the female in detention as a form of punishment for misbehavior (Sherman, 2012, pp. 1589-1590). This principle also remains prevalent as it pertains to how the juvenile justice system currently responds to juvenile female offenders.

The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.

Justice is like a river,strong but can be easily contaminated.On April 1,2003 the government introduced the YCJA in canada,It covers the prosecution of youths for criminal offences for ages 12-17.It is clear that since it’s introduction in 2003 the YCJA has been making a remarkable stride for youth offenders.It is evident that the YCJA is both fair and equitable to youth who have broken the law. The YCJA gives youths seconds chances at a better future,don't clog the court with minor cases and understand kids haven't matured yet.

Currently each state and territory in Australia has its own individual legislation concerning juvenile crime. All state and territory laws do not conform to the Conventions on the Right of the Child and it is crucial that these laws are amended to better protect juveniles. The most effective reform that could be made is for each state and territory to amend their individual legislations to increase the minimum age to be criminally responsible from 10 to 12 with the doli incapax doctrine still being applied. Although it has been acknowledged that under the common law doctrine doli incapax, children between 10 and 14 are only criminally responsible if the individual is mature enough to realise the consequences of their actions, this assessment is left to the judge, often without expert knowledge from a phycologist (Amnesty International, 2015). Furthermore, it is crucial for Queensland to raise their maximum age from 17 to 18. This amendment will allow Australia to keep up with international standards while reducing Aboriginal crime in areas where crime rates are

Youth crime is a growing epidemic that affects most teenagers at one point in their life. There is no question in society to whether or not youths are committing crimes. It has been shown that since 1986 to 1998 violent crime committed by youth jumped approximately 120% (CITE). The most controversial debate in Canadian history would have to be about the Young Offenders Act (YOA). In 1982, Parliament passed the Young Offenders Act (YOA). Effective since 1984, the Young Offenders Act replaced the most recent version of the Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA). The Young Offenders Act’s purpose was to shift from a social welfare approach to making youth take responsibility for their actions. It also addressed concerns that the paternalistic

Juvenile justice is the section of law that applies to persons under the age of 18 not capable of receiving sentencing in the adult court system or old enough to be responsible for criminal acts committed in society. In most states the age of criminal culpability is 18 however, the age requirement can be set lower in accordance to certain crimes and statutes set by the state the juvenile lives in. Juvenile law is primarily run by state law and most states enforce a specific juvenile code the system follows. The juvenile justice system primarily focuses on rehabilitation

Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative

“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The

Specific laws are created because young people do not make the right decision for themselves and do not understand the consequences of their action. The law for young people was made to protect the youth and avoid situations that may affect them. The principle objective of the Youth Justice Act in section 1(a) is " to establish a code for dealing with children who have, or are alleged to have, committed offences". Additionally, there are other laws that was established for youth such as the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) which was purposely established to prevents the children from consuming alcohol under age and it also prevents any situation relating to alcohol and youth. Another law that was made for youth is the Tobacco and other Smoking Products 1998 (Qld).

Young people represent the future of society. Consequently, they deserve respect and support while they develop in order to maintain a fair and just society. Therefore, it is the juvenile justice system’s responsibility to establish institutions and legislation to protect the important role that young people play in society. The system should also be driven by welfare and justice concerns as young people have special needs in regards to their age, and their physical, emotional and social development. It is essential that these welfare and justice concerns are addressed effectively by the system in order for young people to flourish. This essay will firstly assess the NSW juvenile justice system in regards to its treatment of young offenders in detention, in conjunction with its obligations under domestic and international law. Additionally, this essay will analyse evidence of welfare and justice concerns for youth offenders in detention in NSW. And furthermore, this essay will analyse the implications of youth detention on young offender’s and society. And ultimately argue that the NSW contemporary juvenile justice system is not driven by welfare and justice concerns. Given the fact that NSW has the highest rate of youth detention in Australia, and that there is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that youth detention carries detrimental physical and psychological consequences. Furthermore, the NSW juvenile justice system is not upholding the fact that young people

The federal government of Canada fifteen years ago, in 1984, the Liberal party changed the Juvenile Delinquents Acts to the Youth Offenders Act to have a “More human approach to the rights of young people before the law”(Leschild and Jaffe, 8:1991). In the present such as Premier, Mike Harris, of Ontario wants the federal government of Canada to scrap the Young Offenders Act. In 1999, the same party that came up with the act is making majors changes to the act. This report will look at the young offenders act at the present time, look at why kids commit crime, what is being done to improve the act, what has the province done towards teenagers and also a look at the United Sates youth system.

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court system.