YCJA

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 purpose of sentencing is to ensure youth are held accountable for their actions focusing on a rehabilitation and re-integration approach, while ensuring youth are given an appropriate consequence. There are many differences to sentencing a youth than an adult. A young person lacks the maturity of an adult, and the youth justice system must reflect that fact. Some differences include accountability and level of maturity, rehabilitation and reintegration are strongly emphasized, increased protection on procedures, and the intervention is implemented in a timely

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

This essay intends to address the role that state agencies, both within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and more broadly the institutions of education, employment and health, play in supporting and implementing diversionary programs for offenders with mental health problems. Mental health is clearly one of the most critical issues facing the Australian and New South Wales (NSW) CJS with research indicating that offenders with mental health problems constitute the majority of those within the prison system. The current strategies for diversion will be critically evaluated in order to determine their effectiveness with regard to the delivery and production of justice, cultural sensitivity for Indigenous Australians will also be considered.

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 determinate sentencing system provides juvenile judges with tremendous flexibility in ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their crimes, that public safety is protected, and that youth have the opportunity to become rehabilitated and turn their lives around. Determinate sentencing, under some circumstances, also provides juvenile judges with the opportunity to take a “second look” at the youth when he or she reaches adult age, so that the judge can re-evaluate the youth’s risk to public safety at that point (Deitch, 2011).

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

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 goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

The subject’s discussions on the welfare versus the punishment-oriented approach have given me the ability to critically examine the different criminal justice responses on various groups of youth, and identify the disadvantages and advantages of each response. Through learning about the systemic problems, I have become more aware of the marginalised conditions of certain young people and understand why the rehabilitation approach might work better than traditional punitive measures. I also learnt that due to the complexities surrounding different groups of youth, there are no quick fix responses to deter young people from

The topic of juvenile criminal justice is much like the art of parenting. The main concern is figuring out how to deter the child from the same action without letting them get away with too much and not crushing their spirits. SUCH AS when a child goes beyond the set boundaries for him while playing outside which leads to hurting another child, the child should be disciplined to be deterred from crossing those boundaries again, but that discipline shouldn’t scare them away from ever going outside or playing again. There is a large range of beliefs on what types of punishment should be given to juvenile criminals depending on their age and crime. The requirements of retribution are different across the United States but that doesn’t mean it’s not a big issue. {Maybe a statistic here? This paper is an accumulation of various sources that revolve around rehabilitating juvenile criminals and adjusting the juvenile justice system and prevention programs through researcher, Richard A. Mendal’s five suggestions. Juvenile criminals should be responsibly punished for their crime but be able to go through rehabilitation with the goal to reintegrate into society again.

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 two contrasting approaches to Youth Justice System applied in two different countries is an American approach which its based on Classical theory (post 1960s) and a Swedish approach based on Positivism (current). The first one focuses on the offence committed by the child or the young person, procedural formality and in effect on punishment. This approach seems to be a similar approach to the ‘justice’ approach in the UK which was then successively replaced by the ‘welfare’ approach. America is currently in the process of developing a new way of looking at the Youth Justice System. Research by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice led many states and courts to view juvenile crime, and juvenile