This journal talks about the up to date political rhetoric and societies opinion on the topic of youth crime. In the article it states two critical societal gauges, the first being social order,” a society based on a persuasive and binding morality”, therefore the most important threat is disorder (Hartnagel, 2004, pp. 358). Next in order is justice; “a society based on a fair and equitable distribution of power, wealth, prestige and privilege minority (Hartnagel, 2004, pp.358). These two dialogues vary with whether order with justice or justice with order should be the controlling guideline. The journal talked about a murder case that had a negative impact on the public and a few politicians requested a change in the Youth Offenders Act (Hartnagel, …show more content…
In 1992, the demonstration expressed that youthful wrongdoers must be conveyed to adult court if the security of the general population and the youth can not be met through Youth Offenders Act and raised the most extreme sentence for murder from three to five years (Hartnagel, 4004, pp. 361). However, in 1995 the youth accused of a vicious offense went straight to adult court unless allowed an application expressing the individual can be attempted in youth court, on the condition that there is proof that the trial would be of the best interest for the recovery of the youth and the security of the overall public (Hartnagel, 2004, pp.361). Canadians believed due to survey and studies that the Youth Offenders Act is unsuccessful because youth crime elevated over the years (Hartnagel, 2004, pp.364). The media has a huge impact on the public therefore, the article states that the media rarely contains the correct information. General society believe what they read since the media is not completely true they are deceived, along these lines the feelings on youth crime will keep on being contorted (Hartnagel, 2004,
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.
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.
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
New Labour youth justice policy and practice over the past decades have been deep-rooted in an ideological framework. That incorporates criminological theoretical both neo-liberal approaches in regarding young people who commit offences, that has become responsibility for the management of risk, and less tolerant of indiscipline more overtly in society (Muncie, 2008). Likewise neo-conservative ideologies that involves of left realisation of policy and reintegrative shaming. Whereby the offending activities of the individual are shamed with the punishment that suit the crime, however at the same time take in consideration the circumstances whereby the individual commit the offence (Hopkins Burke, 2008). Increasingly, in United Kingdom there have been a culture of fear which surrounding the youths in society influences in part by cases such as the murder of two year old James Bulger committed by ten year olds Robert Thompson and Jon Venables in 1992 as the contributing factors (Pitts,2001).
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.
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
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
Juvenile delinquents, individuals who are under 18 and have committed a crime, have been sentenced in a variety of procedures throughout the years. This may occur for various crimes such as theft, sexual assaults, etc. Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), a part of Canadian Legislation, determines the process of prosecution for youths under the Canadian Criminal Justice system. This has assisted several young adults reintegrate into society. It contains a set of definitive purposes and principles to aid judges in deciding sentences that are appropriate for youth. Prior to the YCJA, the Youth Justice Legislation was greatly influenced by two major acts: Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA) and Young Offenders Act (YOA). JDA, established in 1908, was recognized as an unjust act because judges were authorized to declare a sentence based on their opinion, not the law. Similarly, YOA (1984) provided unsuccessful sentences that consisted of inconsistent and vague principles. In 2003, the Youth Criminal Justice Act was introduced to generate equilibrium intervening the juridical framework of YOA and the social needs approach underlying the JDA. However, great controversy has been held against the act due to several individuals who presume it holds no purpose. Many infer that it is unjust to not be able to refer to the youth’s criminal record and to have an age boundary, although numerous statistics and criminal rate changes have disproved this. The Youth Criminal Justice Act has been
With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.
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.
Societies tend to view the youth as the future and hope of a nation. To a certain extent, societies observe the behaviours and potential of the young people to ‘estimate’ the political and socio-economic future of a nation. When there is what societies view as a deviance from the norm when in it comes to young people – often there is what is viewed as a ‘moral panic’. I will be looking at the ‘moral panic’ of youth crime or juvenile delinquency, the role of its ‘moral
Many young adolescents who have committed horrendous crimes have been a huge topic amongst the Supreme Court. Whether young adolescents are viewed as innocent, naive children to the public, this not changed the fact they can commit brutal crimes. In spite of the fact that adolescents have committed brutal crimes such as murder, one needs to understand that their brains are not as fully developed as an adult brain would be. Adolescents should not be trialed to a life sentence or attend adult prisons; however, they should be punished for their actions and undergo rehabilitation programs to help them be prepared to fit in with the rest of society.
Youth crime is the crime committed by juvenile offenders. It is the common issue in Australia. The age group between 14-19 years old is the popular group of youth crime. (News 2013) Different age groups commit different types of crimes. (The youth court 2009) Also, there are many kinds of crime and crime method in the society, such as, drug offences, robbery, burglary, assault and violent offenses. The group of people who crime together that is called criminal group. It is a prevalence crime method and it is effective for crime. This question will focus on what is youth crime, the change of youth crime in recent year and the relationship between drug offences and the youth crime in Australia.
There is debate whether youth crime is really a problem to society or just an issue that is constructed by society. It is argued that media has influenced society’s views on this matter by categorising young people as ‘folk devils’ (Banks, 2013). Certain groups, episodes and people that pose a threat to society’s values is when a moral panic takes place (Cohen, 1972). For example, this can be seen nowadays when there is no actual threat but old people get intimidated when they see large groups of young people hanging about on streets. These influences led to policy change, increasing the level of social control. This means that youth crime may be perceived as a moral panic rather than an actual problem.
Logically, when we talk about youth crimes every person in this world will either response good or bad reaction towards it. For instance, we can see that youth crimes are spreading swiftly around the world and this problem should be the main concern among the society. Currently these days, children at the age of 6 are already getting themselves involved in such a cruel act. What exactly is the meaning behind the word youth crime? Youth is the period when young people between childhood and adult age is associated with vigor and immature feelings. Meanwhile, crime is an action that although not illegal but it is considered to be outrage and wrong. Juvenile delinquency is the other word that is also famous in describing youth crime. Hence, there