The Criminal Justice System Is Failing Children And Young Offenders Essay

The relevant legislation that has been implemented, (Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987), has addressed issues that young people face. However, rights for young people still need to be addressed. Doli Incapax, The Children’s Court and Legal are measures taken to protect young offenders in regards to the criminal justice system. Ensuring that the child’s rights are protected there have been legislations passed to guarantee the enforceability of this alternative methods. Young people are treated differently to adults in the criminal justice system for three major reasons. They are; they prevent children and young people from being exploited, protect them from making uniformed decisions and protect others from being disadvantaged by dealing with a person that is a

How effective is the Youth Justice System in responding to youth crime? Since the arrival of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) came into effect, the crime rates have decreased. Previously Canada had one of the highest youth incarceration rates in the western world. However since the Youth Criminal Justice Act got put into place in 2003, the crime rates have declined significantly. The Youth Justice System does their best to better and rehabilitate the adolescents that get into trouble with the law. They provide youth with rehabilitation programs, behavioral programs, and diversion programs. The purpose of the Youth Justice System is to rehabilitate and make these teens positive members of society. This paper argues that Youth Criminal Justice System is effective in responding to youth crime. Specifically, this paper with discussing rehabilitation for young juvenile delinquents, downfalls of stats and crime sentencing and a better lifestyle for the youth after juvenile detention.Therefore, the Youth Justice System attempts to provide teens with a brighter future no matter what they are being charged with.

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

The government also established the contemporary Youth Justice System and the Youth board a non-departmental public body, which was given the overall responsibility for the youth justice and creates interdisciplinary including with police, social services working within a framework to end youth offending. The (CDA) placed a statutory responsibility on all those who work with the youth justice system to gives consideration to the main aim of preventing offending in children and young people this was the set of objective for managing young people, and identified those as at risk of offending (Goldson, 2000 cited in Byrne and Brooks

Sentencing youth offenders has a different criterion then sentencing an adult as the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) has a set of principles and guidelines, which judges must follow. Sentencing is a process where a youth is either found guilty or has pleaded guilty and a judge will decide on an appropriate consequence (Justice Education Society, 2017). The process ensures youth are held accountable for their actions, focusing on a rehabilitative, or reintegrated approach. There are many ways a youth offender can be sentenced. Section 42(2) of the YCJA defines and explains sentencing options for youth 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.

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

Youth justice practitioners are guided by a planning and assessment framework (Asset plus) providing specialists with indispensable information and documentation. With reference to the Asset plus, it was drafted and endorsed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) to holistically provide motivation to young offenders within the process of intervention (Daniel 2014). Furthermore, (Boyle et al 2010) highlighted on important factors which reflect on practitioner’s responsibility to identify and assess young offenders. In fact, Boyle and colleagues were able to explain in their research analysis that, as facilitators, practitioners can diagnose and engross positive ambitions that an individual pose. Thus, giving much emphasis on inherent objectives and consequently developing a strengths-based methodology. However, not only the implementation of diverse tools to try and modify young offender’s behaviours can be useful, but other models, arrangements and interactions that are applicable to targeted youth programs can also be

InThe agencies that comprise of the youth justice system vary from the Police to youth courts. There have been areas to tackle such as the disproportionate number of BAME children together with considering the welfare of a child via the 1933 Children Act. In light of the Ameen Jogee case and other joint enterprise convictions , the trust between the police is only degraded , as they are depicted as an oppositional force for imposing the law amongst the youth population many of whom are also victims of serious crime. The distrust was illustrated in the report by Jenny Jones focusing on young people in London. She proclaimed in order to prevent crime young people must have in the Police force. It is likewise imperative that the Police develop

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

Discussed earlier was the idea of rehabilitating youths in reformatories at the House of Refuge, but only youths deemed reformable (Fox, 1996). What about the youth who were not reformable? What about the youth that commit a serious violent offense such as murder, rape, torture, or armed robbery? In the 1980’s during the “get tough” on juvenile crime movement, states passed waiver legislation that allowed for the transfers of youths to adult court (Kupchik, 2003). Not only has there been no significant findings that trying juveniles as adult does not lower the potential for recidivism, but it has not been found to be an effective means of crime control (Fagan, 2008). Although being tried as an adult opened up even more constitutional safeguards than had been provided post-Gault, the transfer of juveniles to adult court went against the moral notion of keeping youths out of court and out of the system (McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., … Stone, G., 2007). How does the juvenile justice system, after years of reform and change get back to being a therapeutic and focused on individualized justice? Is it possible?

The Australian criminal justice system acknowledges the immaturity of young offenders compared with that of adult offenders, and thus impose system in which their crimes are dealt with. A criminal conviction relies upon a two-fold basis whereby the actus rea and mens rea must be proved, however young offenders are treated with a different level of responsibility as they have not reached adulthood. Referred to as juvenile justice, offenders under the age of 18 are recognised as requiring a greater level of protection and assistance due to their state of dependancy. Such programs are specifically geared to protect young offenders and aim to deal with youth in a more effective manner due to their increased vulnerable state.This protection is consistent throughout the criminal trial process and covers all stages starting from acknowledging the age of responsibility.

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

This essay aims to make clear the system of restorative justice and its aims towards youth offending, whilst arguing points for and against the current system and whether or not it is more appropriate in terms of dealing with youth offending. It will also define restorative justice as well as defining what is meant by conventional justice. Making clear how and why these two systems came to be a part of youth justice whilst concluding as to which if either is more appropriate in dealing with youth offending behaviour.

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.