The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), established on April 1st, 2003, is an independent piece of legislation within the justice system set aside for youth aged 12-17 who have committed a crime. There are several aspects that differ the current legislation from the past legislation, the Youth Offenders Act (YOA). So to what extent is the justice system fair and equitable to the youth? For the following reasons, I am drawn to the the belief that the YCJA is fair and equitable. Firstly, the YCJA has appointed a relevant age range for this statute. Secondly, the Youth and Criminal Justice Act takes into account a youth’s personal histories and unlike the Youth Offenders Act, the YCJA is obligated to assign the youth consequences in which they …show more content…
What if an 11 year old commits a crime? The world is full of ‘what ifs’ especially if it is regarding the law and making exceptions. The only way you can contradict the ‘what if’ statement is by using information that has already been proven to assist you in answering all of the ‘why’s’ and ‘what’s’. That is precisely what the YCJA has done. Child development studies have proven that a youth reaches many milestones during the ages 12-14. These life benchmarks can now justify their consequences with more meaning rather than children under this age group as they have very little knowledge and are still being taught the particularly basic fundamentals of life. Not only do these youths change physically, but their emotional and mental states are also being altered. For example, these include becoming more aware of right and wrong, being affected by peer pressure, and only thinking of present outcomes and not the future . All of these milestones can be contribution to why a youth is committing a crime. Youth are becoming more knowledgeable about their moral sense by 12 years old. Therefore it is an appropriate age where a teen’s/youth’s offenses should be thoroughly examined in order for them to be responsible for the consequences they have to …show more content…
The YCJA has the liability to assign a youth meaningful consequences that would instill one with positive behaviours and actions. This is why they are able to appoint a person counselling and community service as a consequence. Some might argue that this is not fair and equitable because they wonder how picking up garbage in the community would be advantageous, but in reality “Community supervision orders are sometimes given with other sanctions and, at a minimum, require the young person to keep the peace, be of good behaviour, report to correctional personnel and appear before the court as required.” Considering that youth’s minds are still being developed, including their frontal lobe which is responsible for a person’s behaviour, reasoning and intelligence, it is easier to implant positive behaviours in these 12-17 year olds compared to adults. In terms of counselling and seeking psychiatric aid, the YCJA takes into deliberation not only the severity of the crime, but also one’s characteristics, attitude and background. If a youth came from a background in which they have not been influenced by positive influences, it is then affirmative to send them to rehabilitation. Both counselling and community service support the rehabilitation and reintegration aspect of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Another reason why people may not corroborate with these consequences is because they believe that the youths are being released from
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.
The Youth Justice System uses rehabilitative justice when dealing with youth. This method is proven to be effective. If we compare this way of justice to United States (which uses retributive justice) we will see a difference in crime rates and notice that United States has a higher rate of people prisoned than Canada. This affects citizens of United States of quality of life since they have to pay more taxes to keep those people in jail. In Canada our quality of life is affected by this, because we have less people in prisons which means we have more people in society that our sharing the load of taxes. The Youth Justice System subjects the offender to just and meaningful consequences that will affect the young offender in positive way. Instead of just locking up the offender or using harsh punishments, it uses methods such as restitution, community service, counselling (social and mental health workers) to deal with the
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
We believe that YCJA is fair. The law is fair and equitable in the light of fact that some of the adolescent who have a crime might not know what they are doing but will get a fair sentence and punishment. Having these laws will help the teenagers to not do the same crime again because they may need to pay restitution or do a community service. As years pass by, we are seeing that there fewer cases of youth breaking laws and they are given a second chance to reintegrate. In this way, the youth is given a chance to learn from his/her previous mistakes. The YCJA also provides fair consequences and fair
Restorative vs. Retributive Justice Name Institution Date The movie ‘Sleepers’ describes the lives of four boys, Tommy, Michael, Shakes, and Johnny. In an attempt to steal a hot dog cart, the cart rolls down the street almost killing an elderly man. The four boys are taken to a collective center, Wilkinson Home for Boys.
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.
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.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) is the principal federal program through which the federal government sets standards for juvenile justice systems at the state and local levels. It provides direct funding for states, research, training, and technical assistance, and evaluation. The JJDPA was originally enacted in 1974 and even though the JJDPA has been revised several times over the past 30 years, its basic composition has remained the same. Since the act was passed in 1974, the JJDPA focused solitary on preventing juvenile delinquency and on rehabilitating juvenile offenders.
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
The overwhelming majority of juveniles are involved in impulsive or risky, even delinquent behaviors during their teenage years. However, the majority go on to become very productive citizens who do not commit crimes. In order for this to continue the government established the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which gives young offenders a chance to better themselves, and. By doing so, the YCJA helps teach youth that their actions are unacceptable and the punishments imposed are lesser then an adult. Through the analysis of their unacceptable actions, lesser punishments and a better future, it is clear that YCJA is highly effective at giving youth a better chance in society.
The YCJA was created with two main goals in mind the first being “For the relatively small number of youth found guilty of the most serious violent offences, the Act facilitates the process for imposing a more severe, adult sentence. [The second is] for the vast majority of young offenders who commit less serious offences, the YCJA is intended to reduce Canada's reliance on the use of courts
“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The
Why is the Youth Criminal Justice Act so important? What does it do for us and our youth? How is it fair and equitable? The YCJA applies to young offenders twelve to seventeen, and youth ages fourteen to seventeen can be given adult sentences if needed. It gives meaningful consequences to young offenders and helps rehabilitate and reintegrate them back into our society.
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
Despite negative public opinion regarding youth violence and the increment of youth offences, the Canadian judiciary has unequivocally supported the rehabilitative and re-integrative approach of the YCJA in plethora of cases discussed below. The situation is fostered because this rehabilitative approach seems to be uniformly shared amongst most of the provinces, notably, in less violent cases or violent cases involving first time offenders. However, sentencing has mostly differed in cases involving serious violent offences like murder etc. especially because of the existence of youth prior records relating to violent offences along with psychological assessment on the probabilities of recidivism. These factors support incarceration as