How would you feel if one act of immaturity defined the rest of your life? Not very good one would imagine. However it does happen and in this case it has happened to four young boys from Hell’s Kitchen New York. A simple idea of a funny prank on the local hot dog vender turned into a nightmare for the boys. Their prank got them charged with Criminal Negligence causing Bodily Harm, Theft and Mischief over $5,000. The boys were sentenced to a young boy’s home where they were sexually and psychically abused by the guards. Upon their release the boys were no longer the same. This is an example of how the retributive justice system failed. It failed because it did not deter future crimes from them. In Canada we would take a much more carful …show more content…
Specifically for youth Canada used to practise under a retributive system until they realised how wrong it was. With the new restorative justice system it gives youth a second chance. This is the philosophy of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Giving youth a second chance is so important because it teaches youth to take responsibility for their actions. The four boys would be protected under the YCJA. The YCJA states that youth from twelve to seventeen years of age are protected under the act (Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002). For starters despite the three serious charges they would not be tried as adults. Secondly, considering that the four boys are in fact first time offenders and have no previous records of crime. Also add the fact that they are not a danger to society and themselves the likelihood of incarceration are very unlikely. Under the Canadian Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) Criminal Negligence causing Bodily Harm is described as “Everyone who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years” (Criminal Code, 1985 s221). Theft under the CCC is described as “everyone commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent to deal
The Australian criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique strategies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. Even though young offenders commit a higher percentage of crime compared to adults, young offenders also have the highest likelihood to be rehabilitated and change their lifestyle as they mature, resulting in a lower court appearance percentage due to the different rights children have.
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.
Whether a child who has committed a serious crime deserves rehabilitation or harsh punishment has been argued and the Juvenile Justice System is being blamed. Children who deserve real punishment are receiving rehab and children who deserve rehab are receiving harsh punishment. Many children’s lives are getting ruined because of unnecessary harsh punishment. Some juvenile offenders are not learning their lesson. The article “Sentences Show Acknowledge Juveniles’ Maturity, and Immaturity,” by Laurence Steinburg and the article, “Remember the Victims of Juvenile Offenders,” by Jenifer Bishop-Jenkins differ not only in their views of issues surrounding the American juvenile justice system, they differ in quality; however, Steinburg who argues for rehabilitation, clearly presents the best argument using logical reasoning and relevant evidence.
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 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.
In January of 2015, student athlete Brock Turner sexually assaulted an intoxicated, unconscious woman. In June of 2016, Turner was sentenced to a mere six months in prison. The reasoning of such a short sentence being it would have a “severe impact on him, [and his father argued that] a kid’s life shouldn’t be ruined…because of 20 minutes of action”(Dockterman 2). This argument is one that is often brought up in recent culture. Teens or young adults who are convicted of crimes such as sexual assault, driving under intoxication, or other similar types of crimes are often let off the hook. This defense used is known as “Affluenza”, or, as defined by Matt Gutman of ABC News, the idea of being “too spoiled by [one’s] parents to know right from wrong”(Gutman 2).
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.
Imagine witnessing your parents’ brutal murder right in front of you. Your father is forced to his knees and shoot in the back of his head, execution-style. Your mother’s teeth lie on the floor from the bullet propelled through the side of her head. The fiend proceeds to move forward and shoot her brains out. For Carroll, this was a reality. Robert Acuna barbarically murdered James and Joyce Carroll. What do you think this savage deserves? In America, adolescents can be tried as adults at ages as young as 10. They can be sent to an adult prison with adult cellmates, trapped in an adult environment that they just are not ready for. The prison environment is very influential and may change adolescents for the worse. Exposure to adult criminals
Children should be charged with the same sentence as adults, even though they are young they still commented a serious crime to point where they must be punished for it in a proper way,not in a lesser punish due to age.
I believe that to a high extent canada's justice system is fair and equitable for our youth. There are two criminal justice systems. The criminal code of canada which deal with adults in trouble with the law. Then there is the youth criminal justice system which deals with youth between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in trouble with the law. People who think it is fair and equitable to a low extent do not agree with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They would likely value the consequences should be harsher, if they commit harsh crimes they should go to jail even if they are teens and if they commit a serious crime they could get a criminal record.On the other hand some people agree with the Youth Criminal Justice Act to a high extent which means they agree one hundred percent.They would likely value the consequences fit
How do you begin to rehabilitate or restore a young impressionable mind that has made a mistake? A mistake similar to many have done in the past, as well as will do in the future. A mistake that is life altering, a mistake that can be learned from and a teachable moment are instead used as justification to label, stigmatize, and lock these youth up. With the rationale of someone needs to be held responsible for their actions, or they should've known better. If they have known better do you think they would have still done it. In recent decades theres has been countless times our criminal justice system have done nothing to address the problem facing youth with high adverse childhood experiences and ramifications that comes with being an underprivileged
The Canadian Criminal Justice System is a system that is rooted in fairness, justice, and equality. It does not discriminate against religion, sex, or race, and it is governed by the rule of equity. All this would suggest that the Canadian Criminal Justice System is one that Canadians can have faith in, knowing that the system will protect everyone: society from the criminals, and innocent people from wrongful incarceration. It is interesting, then, that Canadians actually have quite little faith in the system; a study done by Ipsos-Reid for Justice Canada revealed that “only 17 per cent of respondents had high confidence, while 61 per cent had moderate faith and 22 per cent had low level of trust [in the adult criminal justice system]… and only 15 per cent had a high level, 56 per cent had a moderate level and 30 per cent have low confidence [in the youth justice system].” (Harris) It is through cases such as the Steven Truscott case, the Coffin case, and the Karla Homolka case that Canadian faith in the Justice System weakens, cases where the two former individuals were wrongfully convicted of their charges, and where the latter was given a lenient sentence.
As more minors are committing violent crimes, the question of whether they should be tried as adults has arisen. Children as young as 13 or 14 are committing violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. Some of these children are being tried as adults while others are being tried as juveniles and receiving milder punishments. A juvenile offender may receive a few years in a juvenile detention facility and possibly probation following his release at age eighteen. An adult committing the same violent crime will receive a much harsher penalty, often years in jail, possibly a life sentence, with little or no chance of parole. The only difference between the two offenders is the age at which they committed the crime. Juveniles over
Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).