Despite negative public opinion regarding youth violence and the increment of youth offences, the Canadian judiciary has unequivocally supported the rehabilitative and re-integrative approach of the YCJA in plethora of cases discussed below. The situation is fostered because this rehabilitative approach seems to be uniformly shared amongst most of the provinces, notably, in less violent cases or violent cases involving first time offenders. However, sentencing has mostly differed in cases involving serious violent offences like murder etc. especially because of the existence of youth prior records relating to violent offences along with psychological assessment on the probabilities of recidivism. These factors support incarceration as …show more content…
Section 39(1) (a) of the YCJA, which represents one of the four gateways to a custodian sentence, provides that “[a] youth court shall not commit a young person to custody unless… (a) the young person has committed a violent offence.” The Court of Appeal, in a separate decisions, upheld both the sentences, holding that the sentencing judges did not err when they determined that C.D.’s arson to property offence and C.D.K’s dangerous driving offence were “violent offences” within the meaning of s. 39(1) (a). While allowing the appeal, and appreciating the fact that the term “violent offence” has a spectrum of meanings and that it can be applied to property as well as to persons, held, that in the context of YCJA the term “violent offence” should be narrowly construed. The Court based its decision on the object and scheme of the YCJA, and the intention of the Parliament in enacting the same. The Court observed “that the YCJA was designed, in part, to reduce over-reliance on custodial sentences for young offenders. Moreover, where two interpretations affect the liberty of an accused, the one more favourable to the accused should be adopted. A narrow interpretation of “violent offence” means that the definition must exclude pure property crimes. The Court further noted that a harm-based definition of “violent offence” is preferable to a force based definition because it avoids the flaws associated with a
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.
The Youth Justice System uses rehabilitative justice when dealing with youth. This method is proven to be effective. If we compare this way of justice to United States (which uses retributive justice) we will see a difference in crime rates and notice that United States has a higher rate of people prisoned than Canada. This affects citizens of United States of quality of life since they have to pay more taxes to keep those people in jail. In Canada our quality of life is affected by this, because we have less people in prisons which means we have more people in society that our sharing the load of taxes. The Youth Justice System subjects the offender to just and meaningful consequences that will affect the young offender in positive way. Instead of just locking up the offender or using harsh punishments, it uses methods such as restitution, community service, counselling (social and mental health workers) to deal with the
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
Entry #1: Maynard, Robyn. "Incarcerating youth as justice? An in-depth examination of youth, incarceration, and restorative justice." Canadian Dimension Sept.-Oct. 2011: 25+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
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.
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.
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.
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
The overwhelming majority of juveniles are involved in impulsive or risky, even delinquent behaviors during their teenage years. However, the majority go on to become very productive citizens who do not commit crimes. In order for this to continue the government established the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which gives young offenders a chance to better themselves, and. By doing so, the YCJA helps teach youth that their actions are unacceptable and the punishments imposed are lesser then an adult. Through the analysis of their unacceptable actions, lesser punishments and a better future, it is clear that YCJA is highly effective at giving youth a better chance in society.
A lot of Canadian youth face issues such as living in poverty, living in violent neighbourhoods and sometimes that leads to them becoming young offenders. In order to help these youth become positive contributing parts of Canadian society the impact that the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Safe Streets and Communities Act has had on them must be studied. Therefore this essay will address the questions of whether the purpose of the legislation we have to deal with youth offenders is to rehabilitate youth or punish them, and whether or not the method being used by the Canadian government is effective in allowing young offenders to create and lead a stable life after being released from jail. This paper will argue that the main goal of the
When a young person breaks the law in Canada, they are dealt with differently than adults, for they lack the level of maturity and development. The federal law that governs Canada’s youth justice system is Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The act was created in 2003 with a purpose to hold youth (12-17) accountable through sanctions that contribute to the protection of the public. The basic principles of this act are crime prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration, protection of the public and youth, meaningful consequences, and accountability. Hence, it is fair and equitable, as well as effective for youth to a great extent, with preventing crime while ensuring the accountability of a young offender. The data from Statistics Canada show that youth crime has decreased 42% since 2000. This essay focuses on how the justice system effectively ensures the protection of society, the innocent, and ensures that those who break the law, face appropriate consequences.
Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.
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.
A common assumption about young people who commit violent crimes is that they are simply born evil and that nothing good can come of their lives. From this perspective, the only solution is to punish these young offenders by locking them up, either in prison or in a place for teenagers designed to make their lives as miserable as possible. Such an approach suggests that young people who hurt or kill others are untreatable. It also suggests that more prisons must be built to make our communities safe. This assumption, however, is a false one. Research shows that violent young offenders can be treated and reformed. In addition, it shows that when young people fail to receive treatment,it does
In Canada, the juvenile court was established as a tribunal having the sole jurisdiction to hear, process as well as pass judgments for illegal behaviour that are committed by youths. This is a court system that fully distinguishes youths from adults as far as crime is concerned where their misconduct is labeled as delinquent acts rather than crime (Barry, 1987, p. 476). Youth are presumed to have less understanding of social norms and they are less aware of the long-term consequences of their behaviour. Unlike punishment or reprimanding, the juvenile court system acts as a rehabilitation facility for youth offenders (Barry,1993, p. 204). Over the past decade, there has been ongoing debate over the abolition of the juvenile justice system which places an emphasis on the court 's responsibility to continue defining legal violations by youth offenders as delinquency (rehabilitate), or to define them as crimes and transfer the youth to criminal court (for punishment). Barry Feld, a professor from the University of Minnesota Law School argues that judicial decisions, legislative amendments, and administrative change have altered the juvenile court from a rehabilitative social welfare agency into a “scaled-down second-class criminal court” for youth offenders; consequently, youth offenders are frequently not granted their constitutional rights in juvenile courts (Barry, 1997, p. 68). In light of these failures, Feld proposed that juvenile courts should be abolished and