Ycj Research Paper

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.

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 young boys are sentenced to serve terms of between twelve to sixteen months. (Fried & Reppucci 2001) The Youth Criminal Justice Act was made into a law and applies to young people aged between 12 and 18 years who have broken the law. The Youth Act emphasizes on correcting behavior through accountability of the mistake done, rehabilitating the offenders and the act emphasizing on fair enforcement of the law.

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

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.

Justice is like a river,strong but can be easily contaminated.On April 1,2003 the government introduced the YCJA in canada,It covers the prosecution of youths for criminal offences for ages 12-17.It is clear that since it’s introduction in 2003 the YCJA has been making a remarkable stride for youth offenders.It is evident that the YCJA is both fair and equitable to youth who have broken the law. The YCJA gives youths seconds chances at a better future,don't clog the court with minor cases and understand kids haven't matured yet.

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.

One argument for this group would be Kelly Van Camp was hit and badly injured, by a stolen car full of teens. Since they were under the YCJA, they were not charged the same as adults. They should have got jail time but because they were under the YCJA they faced no jail time at all. They should have been faced with harsher consequences such as 6 months to 10 years in jail.July 7th 2007, a 17-year-old Edmonton youth was not charged with first-degree murder after a man was found shot to death in a parked car. He was charged under the YCJA and was not charged with murder even though he was proven guilty. In my opinion the YJCA is too easy on youth offenders. The YJCA is unfair and inequitable because if this youth was one year older he would have been charged with murder but instead he is just let off with a slap on the wrist. For example, multiple rapists and murderers, so long as they are 17 or under can still have a chance of not being sentenced. This side of the argument believes that they still should be sentenced like

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 Court was established in 1899, under the Juvenile Court Act. The Act was established under three principles; children at a certain age are too young to be held accountable for their actions, they are not mentally competent, and they are more likely to be rehabilitated than an adult offender. However, in the past years juvenile are committing more violent crimes that suggest they should be tried in criminal courts rather than juvenile courts. It is my belief that if a child under the age of 18 commits a violent crime they should be charged as an adult offender. Certain criteria should be established when charging a juvenile as an adult; at what age should a child know right from wrong, the type of crime a child has committed, and if the child is a repeat offender. These three things should be questioned when charging a child as an adult.

The twenty-first century poses as an evolutionary revolution for young offenders. Barry Levinson’s Oscar nominated film Sleepers discloses many of the frailties previously encompassed within the youth justice system, shedding insight on the lack of legislative review. Although four young first-time offenders known as Tommy Marcano, Michael Sullivan, John Reilly, and Lorenzo Carcaterra are sentenced within the retributive justice system for crimes of mischief and theft, the Wilkinson’s Detention Center further victimizes these youth creating a deeper path of violence. In contrast to zero-tolerance policies enforced within the film, the establishment of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in 2003 provides a structural framework that enhances

Justice is defined as what is “fair and right”, but does that account for everyone’s beliefs and values? The government has tried to do all they can to appeal to everyone’s point of view but it is extremely difficult. They have created some temporary solutions for youth however. Everyone defines justice in a different way based on religion, worldview, and family or personal situations. Officials make sure youth offenders are treated differently than adult offenders with the Youth Criminal Justice Act (or YCJA), and some different aspects of the YCJA are special privacy regulations when dealing with youth offenders, rehabilitation, as well as help with reintegration back into 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