Lee Bonneau

Canada has many rules in place for all the crimes that happens throughout the country. However, people of different ages are treated differently. This is because of the YCJA, which gives youth who commit crime, under the age of eighteen, certain rights that adult criminals don’t get. This is a very debated and important topic because this act gives certain advantages to youth criminals because of their age and some people don’t think that this is fair.

In this summary response we are summarizing the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers”. In this article Jennifer Jenkins talks about her sister’s experience and how it was caused by a teenager. And what she is basically trying to make a claim on how teens do deserve to go to life sentences. But yet she does not have any experience since she is just a teacher.

Currently if a D aged 18 or over is convicted of murder, the judge must pass a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. For offenders aged 10-17 found guilty of murder, the judge must order that they are detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. The fact the sentencing is mandatory and the judge has no discretion leaves a lack of ability to sentence according to blameworthiness, unlike all other offences which have discretion in sentencing; Gotts. This lack of differentiation between blameworthiness is further emphasised by the Government’s sentencing guidelines laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under this act in cases of murders of police officers or murders involving firearms D should receive a 30 year sentence. However, in cases like that of Martin (Anthony) such a sentence would appear unjust.

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

In the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins asserts that teens are becoming more violent and starting commit more crimes because of the national television they watch.Jenkins tells the reader about “JLWOP” (Juvenile Life Without Parole) and how kids are being sentenced to life in prison without parole.Some people are trying to advocate to minimize the offender culpability because of their age.While kids are getting sentenced to life without parole, this disproves juvenile advocates reliance on the undeveloped brain.Some juvenile offenders truly understand what the victim family go through and how long it takes them to recover.There were millions of dollars spent to end JLWOP and to set convicted murderers free.

America is again divided by something that we need a solution for right away. Today, it is between the people who believe mandatory life in prison for juveniles should be abolished and those who believe the opposite. If a teenager committed murder and any other heinous act they indeed should be sentenced to life. We cannot let people get away with that. They took the life of another, so they should see how it feels. There are many reasons why you should believe juvenile life sentences should still be legal such as the effect it has on the victims families, the accountability these teens should have, and just how ludicrous any other counter argument can be.

In Canada when a young person gets in trouble with the law, the punishment given will be in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was created in 2003. The main objective of this legislation is to hold youth accountable for their actions through the promotion of “rehabilitation” and “reintegration” (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002, S.3a(ii)). Within the Canadian court system, there is a youth court for individuals who get in trouble with the law while they are still under the age of 18 years. In Calgary, Alberta the youth courtrooms are located in the Calgary Courts Center building, which is located at 601 5th Street SW. I attended youth court on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 and Monday, October 31th. This paper will shed light on the atmosphere of the youth courtroom, analyze how the criminal justice professionals are acting within the courtroom, and discuss certain cases that went through the youth courts.

Garinger was a former juvenile court judge, so Garinger is a very credible source when it comes to the topic of juvenile criminals. To support Garinger’s credible usage of ethos, he demonstrates that in 2005, Supreme Court acknowledged that even though juveniles have committed terrible crimes such as homicide “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders” (6). This technique of providing the opinions of Supreme Court helps build Garinger’s credibility, and even more so that he is was a former juvenile court judges, so he most likely has a personal relationships with the Supreme Court. Readers feel sympathy to any juvenile who have been charged as adults and been sentenced to life without parole.

In Spring 2009, three offenders, all in grade eleven , set two houses is Sherwood park on fire. The youth criminal justice Act (YCJA) provided opportunities for them to reintegrate and rehabilitate, instead of throwing them in jail. YCJA covers kids between the ages twelve to seventeen years old. It 's purpose is to handle youth offenders more differently than adults because of their undeveloped minds. The YCJA was released back in 2003. By protecting the rights and providing Youth Canadians the support they need, the YCJA benefits the offenders in a positive way. The act gentrust the youth a second chance to make sure they don 't reoffend by rehabilitating and reintegrating them. Also youth over the age 14 years can get an adult sentence if necessary. Therefore, the YCJA is an effective law because it supports everyone; youth will acquire the help they need and Public Safety is insured.

The question that needs to be answered is, does the Youth Criminal Justice Act in Canada properly address the victims' rights, the rights and needs of the young offender, and does it protect public safety? That question is hard to answer, as some people think that the Act is a more decent and humane way to approach young persons in trouble with the law. On the other hand others feel it offers too much protection to those whom least deserve it -- the young offenders, and very little to those who deserve it -- the victims. The Youth Criminal Justice Act should concentrate on making young offenders aware that they will be held responsible and accountable for their behaviour.

Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is

Terms such as “chugs”, “redskins” and so on are used (Strong, 2014). By using these racist terms, this appeals to the audience’s anger as well compassion once again. The audience is aware that this text is written from the first nations perspective, when the author starts to use these racist and derogatory terms this causes the readers to feel angry towards the racism being used and also causes the reader to feel badly that the first nations are referring to themselves in such a way to get the attention of the general

In the article, “On Punishments and Teen Killers”, by Jennifer Jenkins, publish in August 2, 2011, take a look at how this happen to her sister when she died

Charles Lee, a general in the American Revolutionary war, is a historic figure in American history. Serving under George Washington, Charles Lee participated in a number of battles. However, history says Charles Lee was treacherous to the cause, all the while that he was in command during that time; he was acting in bad faith toward the Americans. His influence in the army was, at all times, mischievous (General Charles Lee: Traitor of the American Revolution). To the British, Charles Lee was a traitor who turned on England to fight under George Washington. Due to Charles Lee’s treacherous actions against America, it would lead to his downfall in the

In Canada when a young person gets in trouble with the law the punishment they will receive will be in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was created in 2003. The main objective of this legislation is to hold youth accountable for their actions through the promotion of “rehabilitation” and “reintegration” (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002, S.3). Within the Canadian court system there is a youth court for individuals who get in trouble with the law while they are still under the legal age of 18 years. In Calgary, Alberta the youth courtrooms are located at the Calgary Courts Center building with is located on 601 5th Street SW. I attended youth court on Wednesday October 26, 2016 and Monday October 31th. This paper will shed light on the atmosphere of the youth courtroom; analyze how the criminal justice professionals are acting within the courtroom, discuss certain cases that went through the youth courts.