The Crime Committed By The Three Boys

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.

In this report, the President of Queensland’s Children’s Court, Michael Shanahan, provides an overview of juvenile justice in the period 2013-14. This includes a summary of the latest trends, which suggests a decrease in the number of youth offenders. Shanahan, a stakeholder in this issue, raises the idea that new amendments to the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) creates a more punitive approach to sentencing, which can cause recidivism. While the first part of the report is not entirely objective, the reliability of the resource is restored after Shanahan’s overview with the many tables, statistics and graphs available to peruse. Of the many Children’s Court annual reports available to the public, this report is the most recent and contains

The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) takes care of people from the ages 12-17, who have committed criminal offences. The YCJA protects the young offenders from getting a criminal record, but instead these youths have to face a sentence. The YCJA came into effect on April 1, 2003 but was introduced to the House of Commons on October 14, 1999. Anne Mcallen who was the minister of justice of the YCJA at the time, replaced the Young Offenders Act (YOA) in 2003. Since then, the YCJA made its debut which decreased the youth charges by 21% in 2010. Nevertheless, the YCJA in my opinion has been fair and equal to all youth, but at the same time the YCJA needs improvement.

The Youth in Criminal Justice Act often gets a bad rap for not being hard enough on its young offenders. There is a divide between those who would like to see these youth rehabilitated, and those who like to see them punished with lengthy prison sentences. The following case of R. v. G.-E.(A.), is a prime example of how difficult it can be to chose the most appropriate sentence for a youth offender with the Youth in Criminal Justice Act in Canada. The following case had two critical issues; should Mr.G’s crime be deemed a serious violence offence (SVO)? , and should he have been tried as an adult? In addition to a critical analysis of the aforementioned issues, this research paper will give a brief description of the case, sentencing and requests by the Crown/Defense Counsel, relevant laws (and their limitations) and alternative sentencing options. Lastly, this paper aims to shed light on all the factors that go into making a final sentence for a youth offenders.

In 2014, the Government initiated the Youth Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014. This act introduced new changes that were made to provide fair outcomes and reasonable punishments. This assignment will focus on four of the changes made to the act and evaluate how the introduction of the Youth Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 has impacted on consequences for youth in the youth justice system. Recommendations for changes the government could make will also be stated.

Tupac “Shakur once said “What I learned in jail is that I can't change. I can't live a different lifestyle - this is it. This is the life that they gave and this is the life that I made.” Many adults cannot learn or change during their time in the jail. But this is different for youth. Youth are still growing and their minds are still developing. Youth are more vulnerable to the negative aspects of society and hence have to be helped. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was created by the Canadian Government in 2003 to do just that. The act protects and enforces the rights and freedoms that a youth has. The act helps and provides guidance for youth in the trial process. Finally, the youth is protected in the sentencing and rehabilitation process.

The purposes of the Childrens (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and the Young Offender's Act 1997 is rehabilitation and is intended to be the primary concern for the criminal justice system when dealing with Young Offenders. Statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology show that the rate of detention for young offenders has decreased since 1981 by over 50%. However a study by the AIC found that there was no difference in the rates of reoffending, the report states that the adverse effects of imprisonment on employment outcomes and the evidence that custodial sentencing acts as a deterrent suggests these types of penalties should hardly be used yet 900-1000 young people are held in custody each day. The Young Offender's Act has been

There are many controversial issues that challenge our society in contemporary times, but one that raises much debate is youth offenders and if they should be dealt with in the same way as adult offenders. In modern times people are no longer surprised when children commit crimes but rather than basing our judgement around personalised review of circumstances, offence committed, mental, social and intellectual factors we automatically believe that they are deviant and not likely to change. In this essay I argue that unless the juvenile poses a genuine threat to the safety of other juveniles, the severity of their offence

The concept of childhood suffered a dramatic change, following the murder of two year old Jamie Bulger in 1993 - committed by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables - two ten year old boys. This event is arguably the major turning point regarding the approach towards youth crime and youth justice within England and Wales. (Barry, 2006).

Prior to engaging with critical consideration of the central approaches underpinning the youth justice system in England and Wales, it is worth drawing attention to the system itself. Originally, the categories of adult and young offenders did not exist in the justice system, which prompted their uniform disposal and retribution. The nineteenth century witnessed a significant development in the area of the English criminal justice system with the realisation that juveniles could not accept full criminal responsibility for their deeds, resulting in a further reformation of the system. One legal enactment is of particular note for the discussion further in the present paper, namely the 1963 Children and Young Persons Act , which increased

Youth court deals with young offenders from aged 12-17 who have been charged with an offence. The main objective of Youth Court is to rehabilitate young offenders so that they can become successful, law abiding citizens in the future. This can be accomplished through identifying alternative solutions and the use of discretion. In regards to “law enforcement, there are two alternative solutions to a criminal offence” (Arcaro, 2009, p.27), the first being to lay an information and charge the offender, the second is to not charge them. The difference between the two solutions depends with who solves the problem. Generally, if an offender is charged, it is up to the criminal justice system to use their discretion when sentencing the young offender.

The ABC recommends that, “the Youth Justice Act 1992 (QLD) should be amended to increase the maximum detention period from three to four years, teenagers over 16 should have their cases tried in adult courts, offenders aged 18–21 should not be sentenced to youth detention and, penalties for escaping or trying to escape from detention should be added to sentences, to deal with the rapidly increasing youth crime epidemic.” This would deter youths from committing crimes and prevent the youth justice system from being abused. Therefore, youth crime must be adequately dealt with to protect members of society from being their next

The Children act 1989 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991 were the significant event occurred in the youth justice system in 1990s which had the combine effect that separates the system of dealing with children perceived to be in need of care and to be dealt in a separate court namely Youth court. This was aimed to be a welfare based system. But the increases in the juvenile crime in the 1990s and widespread publicity over persistent young offenders and the murder of two-year-old James Bulger by two ten-year-old boys became major concern which forced the main political parties to reconsider their positions on crime and punishment. As a result the political party committed to be ‘tough on crime ’. The use of warnings and cautions was criticised and discouraged. Later secure training orders for 12-14 year old and longer custodial sentence were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

The manner in which the justice system deals with the young people who break the law has been changing. In 1997, the Young Offenders Act was introduced by the NSW government. The Young Offenders Act sates that young people who commit offences are given cautions, warnings or attend youth justice conferences with the victims of their crimes instead of going to court.

The issue assumes significance in the wake of the brutal gang-rape and assault of a 23-year-old in Delhi on December 16 in a moving bus that shook the conscience of the nation. “The victim died in a Singapore hospital on December 29. One of the six accused in the case is a juvenile” (Apex court). The juvenile in the case was only 12 year olds. According to “Section 82 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Section 83 says nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under 12 and who has not attained the maturity to understand or judge the nature and consequences of his conduct” ( Apex Court). Due to that section clause, the juvenile was let free while the adults in the case were put in jail for 25 years to life.