The Heinous Gangs: The Amy Yates Cases

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 today’s society there has been an increase in the crimes committed by juveniles. Most juveniles have underlining factors that have caused them to choose this type of lifestyle. Many children in the juvenile system have come from impoverish stricken neighborhoods and are festered with gang activity which has made them a product of their environment. The minds of adolescents do not allow them to see how they are affecting their lives. A study was conducted, and according to the article, “Adolescents in Adult Court: Does the Punishment Fit the Criminal?”, when children mature, they will look back at their past and possibly leave their surroundings. Think about two people committing the same crime, both with the same thought process and ability to make decisions, except one is a juvenile and the other is grown. Due to the lack of experience in decision-making or the time to evaluate the situation like the adult, the youth should be viewed as irresponsible. The fact that a child’s mind is still maturing should reassure people that they will not be the same person incarcerated a few years later.

Gail Garinger, the author of “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences,” argues that children should not be struck down for life because they commit the most vile and horrible crimes imaginable, based on the sole fact that they are still adolescents, and that they should be given the chance for parole and rehabilitation because they are not fully developed; therefore, in her article she shows exceptionally strong ethos to support her claim. Garinger first exposes her strong ethos by using the authority of the Supreme Court to exclaim why the youth shouldn’t be punished to a life sentence for homicide or manslaughter by saying, “the Supreme Court

This book’s main proposal is that there is a blatant contradiction in the way that the juvenile justice system is carried out. Throughout the book, Feld proposes that as a result of this contradiction, the modern juvenile justice system fails in every way possible to establish justice for youthful offenders, provide them with any rehabilitation, or provides any preventative measures that were originally the purpose of the system. What originally constituted the juvenile justice system no longer is supported through its processes, but the ideas that helped form the original system are still somewhat maintained. The idea of childhood during the progressive era, in short, say that there is a definite distinction between kids and adults, and that kids deserved special treatment when it came to dealing with offenses. Kids did not deserve as much blame as adults do because they are not yet totally in control of their actions, and thus to preserve and protect troubled children’s futures, kids

One person may argue that young offenders that commit tremendous crimes should not be able to have these special privileges. What they may not realize is that young offenders can fall under what is called “the age of presumption”, which is when a young offender commits an indictable crime and is over the age of fourteen, but less than eighteen years of age. If a child is under this category, their crime can be punished by being given an adult sentence, but only if the child has committed first degree murder or a serious violent offence (Howard Society, 2008). The YCJA gives the opportunity to discipline youth criminals without treating them as harsh as adults would be.

The need to protect children and youth; to treat them separately and differently from adults in the criminal justice system; to provide rehabilitation, not repression and deterrence, when offering judicial intervention with young people; and to consider the best interest of the child to be a guiding principle (p34)

The courts experience many challenges that include determining whether a child who commits a heinous crime should be sentenced in a manner that reflects their actions or based on their ability for rehabilitation. Children have the capacity to commit terrible acts of violence, and when they do the question posed is if they should be punished based on their actions or based on their ability to rehabilitate. The judges also look to see what’s in the best interest of the child (Chambliss, 2005), especially regarding their age. The age of the juvenile in question places tremendous weight on the judge as they want what is

Since the early 1990s the transfer of Juvenile waiver has been an enormously heavy topic on whether a juvenile is fully culpable of a crime or not. The option of juvenile waiver has been a proceeding ethical argument between the courts and the families of the juvenile. According to Forst and Blomquist (2012), criticism involving the juvenile system began in the 1960s and expanded into the 1970s because of the soaring crime rates. The desire for juvenile waiver began with the interpretation that the System failed because of these crime rates. Although juvenile systems across the nation, controversy surrounds the topic of Juvenile justice. There is a constant search for who is in control of the child that is being held in court.

Just as in Australia, juveniles are now being protected more than ever to help deter them from criminal activities. An understanding has occurred that juveniles need more recidivism programs and resources made available to them in order to accurately guide them into adulthood. Punishments have become less hardened on juveniles than ever before for the reason that juveniles don’t have the mental capability to understand fully right from wrong just yet. Many times a juvenile offender is just acting out for attention when they have committed a crime and with that understanding law officials can help them in a justly manner. Protecting the youth has become a prevalent issue worldwide and the need to help them be able to say no to criminal actions

In my view the youth justice system should be dealt in a better way with few amendments. This will not imply that the young children mischievous acts won’t be dealt without any response. There are many various ways that can be dealt, like transfer of resources to children services, various forms of provisions and some special staff to deal with adolescents. The extensive and unfortunate scaling back of youth service over recent years has led to a loss of such expertise.

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.

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.

A juvenile offender is a child who is under the age of 14 years at the time of being sentenced, however they may not be sentenced to imprisonment. They may only be sentenced to imprisonment as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Alternatives with a deterrent and a rehabilitative affect should be considered. And a pre-sentence report is required. With regards to high age, incarceration is avoided, the prospects of rehabilitation are going to decline, and therefore alternatives that have a deterrence effect must be considered. There are other personal circumstances such as the offender being ill, if the offender is the breadwinner in the family, the working circumstances of the offender, their status/reputation, previous convictions, psychological factors, the causes of crime, etc. (Anon.,

“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children “is a famous quote by Nelson Mandela. All progressive democracies of the world have started to recognize the rightful place for children in their societal fabric in its venture to diversification and development by empowering and mainstreaming children. Child-centric human rights jurisprudence has become pivotal in the law’s role in social engineering. This project”Juvenile Justice- A critical analysis on its societal and legal impact “shall focus on the effects of the existing legal system for the protection and prosecution of children. However, the word juvenile has been used together and interchangeably with the term ‘delinquency’ – which describes children who are in conflict with law, conjuring an image of violence. This paper will deal with the history and evolution of the juvenile legal system in India, the relevant statutes in place, contemporary cases of relevance, criticisms on the existing provisions of the act and the amendments to be brought about and in detail discus about the challenges and issues that are ahead. It shall highlight the widespread discrimination and deprivation that is being faced by innumerable children in India today despite the large number of Constitutional guarantees and a plethora of child-centric legislations and civil rights.

In a period when usually common ‘kids not acting their age’ has a different idea and feeling altogether, the laws regarding delinquency have been suddenly changed and pushed to the spotlight. On the terrible and a horrible night of the 22nd of December, 2013, a young medical paramedic was gang-raped and inflicted. The most brutal criminal amongst the devil was the minor at the time of the commission, making him in the eyes of law, and the entire nation express the feeling of hopeless. The incident has not received satisfactory result examine by the rule of law as the verdict in State v Ram Singh & Ors has relieved the one juvenile in the group of the six perpetrators.In the beam of law where one side propounds the lenience on minors as a mandate for a civilized society, the other categorically demands a retributive reformation equating to the misdeed perpetrated. For those juveniles who commit even the most barbaric of crimes, Indian law cushions the punishment by making the maximum sentence to be of only three years, that too, in a reform facility. Nirbhaya was just the tipping point; there have been hundreds of incidents when children in the eyes of law have