Under fire from the date of its creation, the debate over the validity of the Young Offender’s Act continues. Should the YOA remain in its current form as a part of the Canadian legal system? An examination of the reasons it is seen as being ineffective, the need for change, and the suggested amendments and substitutes will provide an accurate picture of the situation from which a conclusion can be drawn. The young offenders act in its current form is nearly optimal. However, there enough reasons for its alteration that a serious consideration of amendments should be considered.
There are a number of reasons why the YOA has been seen as ineffective. There is, in the public, a widespread perception that the YOA is not working at all. This is due to the large amount of misinformation that is sensationalized ruthlessly by the media (Good 1998 7). High profile cases of violent offenders leak, and, lacking details, the media presents an incomplete account of details to the public. As a result some people think that there are kids who know how to “beat the system” and are now out committing crimes with no fear of being seriously reprimanded. But, as one analyst and researcher reports “There are virtually no data … that would permit an examination of this assumption” (Peterson-Badali and Koegl 1998 p127). Since once of the functions of the act is to protect the public, their fears are one a problem that needs to be addressed in any amendments that may go forward.
There is, however, debate over the need for change. Some say the current act is much too easy on youths and that they’re getting away with too much. There are reasons situations, such as these misinterpreted ones, have come about. The YOA was designed keeping youth protection in mind, and experts in the area tend to refer to the fact that “…repeated studies have shown that it is not the severity of punishment which deters crime, but the certainty of it” (Daunt 1998 7). Therefore it is not surprising that thousands of good kids have been helped, and not hindered, by the current legislation on their way to a productive life (Good 1998 171). As well, the current YOA does have serious consequences for violent offenders, many of them ending up in adult court (Daunt 1998 7). One may also begin to see a bit of a trend: The introduction of the YOA in 1984 was to assuage the publics perception of a weak Juvenile Delinquents Act and promised increased penalties for youth offenders (Daunt 1998 7).
The article "Not to Punish But to Reform': Juvenile Delinquency and Children's Protection Act in Alberta” was written by Dr. Rebecca Coulter. This article was originally published in Studies in Childhood History: A Canadian Perspective in 1982. I accessed this article from the textbook Social Welfare Policy in Canada: Historical Readings by Raymond Blake and Jeff Keshen.
In conclusion, the YCJA in an overall advantage for Canada’s justice system. It separates adults from the youth, taking their level of maturity, level of development, and other factors into consideration. The youth cases have been continuously dropping, in general. Both violent and non-violent crimes are declining. This act helps the youth to rebuild themselves and recover. Because they do not focus on punishments, the juveniles are changing for the better. The YCJA prioritizes rehabilitation and reintegration. They help the offenders fix their wrongdoing. Clearly, the YCJA should not be eliminated.
felt by many that the change needed in the area of delinquency within the First
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 treatment of children under the JDA did not conform to Canadian human rights legislation (Mapleleaf). It remained a heated debate until the new legislation passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Some thought a complete overhaul was needed, others thought minor changes would suffice, and still others felt that the Young Offenders Act was best left alone.
People have, not too long ago, realized that youth and adults are very diverse and should not be treated the same. They gave no time for children to develop the “meins reis”, therefore, they were not given the opportunity to learn. People were not aware that the brain of the youth were not fully developed and were not given the chance of change. They thought that once guilty you shall remain guilty. For that reason they were considered adults, when in reality, adult criminals will only continue to infatuate their mind with evil. The new Youth Criminal Justice Act focuses on change and reintegration with society. We have learned that the youth have not fully developed and do not have the full ability to comprehend such judgements.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, often called by the name of YCJA, is specifically made for youths ages varying from 12 to 17 that disobey the law. In April 1, 2003, the YCJA replaced the previous justice act called Young Offenders Act due to several negative concerns. “These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims.” The main purpose of the YCJA aims to have a fairer and more equitable system. Although the YCJA is an effective law within the justice system, a main aspect/characteristic that needs to remain, is keeping the
... parliament has enhanced its Extrajudicial Measures, ensured effective reintegration of a young person once released from custody while creating more jobs and lowering crime re-offending rates and provided much needed clarification on sentencing options giving better guide lines to courts. Although The Youth Criminal Justice Act remains a very important acts with a lot of improvements there are still many problems contained within the act that are still to be improved. With this closing I must insist on posing the following question, Will there ever be a non problematic piece of legislation? One can only envision the answer, for now that is.
Most young offenders get into trouble with the law only once. But the younger children are when they first break the law, the more likely they are to break the law again (Statistics Canada study, 2005). The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) attempts to acknowledge that different youth need different sentences within the justice system, while ensuring that it is fair and equitable for them. Many people, both in Canada, and around the world, believe that youth are not reprimanded harshly enough for the crimes they commit and that they are, in general, are able to squeeze through the justice system without punishment. Others, believe that the justice system does not treat youth fairly and punishes them without acknowledging that rehabilitation
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, enacted in 2003, has had considerable implications for youth offenders, especially in sentencing procedures. However, in 2012 Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his administration made significant punitive amendments that changed the application of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to youth sentencing procedures in Canada. This essay will first discuss a brief history of Canadian legislation regarding youth offenders, and the general characteristics and effectiveness of the YCJA within its first decade of existence. Then, it will highlight the changes made by the Harper administration to the YCJA, and the implications of those changes, using evidence of the cycle of juvenile reoffending through imprisonment
...ing beckoned in with the 21st century. While U.S.’s JLWOP laws are inconsistent with many human rights treatises and with international law, it is more important for our policies to be based on a thorough understanding of the issue- the most essential being a separation of the processes for juvenile and adult criminal offenders. With an emphasis on rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, and the goal of encouraging maturity and personal development after wayward actions, the futures of many teens in the criminal justice system can become much more hopeful.
As noted by Allen (2016), measures that are implemented outside the courtrooms, especially in a formal procedure, may lead to the provision of accurate as well as timely considerations for youth crime. As such, Canada is keen in the reinforcement of these regulations, as they determine both short and long-term judicial solutions. Most importantly, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada plays a major role in the implementation of extrajudicial measures as they may affirm to the occurrence of future issues. According to the Government of Canada (2015a), this calls for an attempt to channel out or divert such offenders from the mainstream justice system to a lesser formal way of dealing with the offenses. This paper attempts to investigate the appropriateness of the extrajudicial measures in Canada, and the reason behind why we established these provisions of the YCJA. It also illustrates an example of a Canadian case, which questions the extrajudicial measures. This discussion canvasses the main argument as for or against the extrajudicial measures in Canada through the adoption of recommendations to the Canadian Government about the proper situations in which such processes should be used.
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 these three laws were defined and why one was replaced by another.
Today?s court system is left with many difficult decisions. One of the most controversial being whether to try juveniles as adults or not. With the number of children in adult prisons and jails rising rapidly, questions are being asked as to why children have been committing such heinous crimes and how will they be stopped. The fact of the matter is that it is not always the children's fault for their poor choices and actions; they are merely a victim of their environment or their parents. Another question asked is how young is too young. Children who are too young to see an R rated film unaccompanied are being sent to adult prisons. The only boundaries that seem to matter when it comes to being an adult are laws that restrain kids from things such as alcohol, pornography, and other materials seen as unethical. Children that are sent to adult prison are going to be subjected to even more unprincipled ideas and scenes. When children can be sent to jail for something as minor as a smash and grab burglary, the judicial system has errors. The laws that send juveniles to adult prisons are inhumane, immoral, and unjust. Kids are often incompetent, which leads to unfair trials. Adult prisons are also very dangerous for minors, and in many cases this leads to more juvenile crimes.
The Justice Department estimates that about 10 percent of all homicides are committed by juveniles under the age of 18. Nearly every year, the FBI arrests more than 33,000 young adults under the age of 18 for offenses (Khan). This clearly shows Juvenile offenders are not taking the justice system seriously. The justice system was created to provide individualized rehabilitation to young offenders that have committed minor crimes. However, juveniles are committing violent crimes because they believe their age will get them off easy. “In order to provide justice to victims and their families and to prevent more and more juveniles from committing violent crimes, the United states must hold criminals accountable; regardless of their age, and impose a tough punishment system. To that end, juveniles should sometimes be tried as an adult.”(Mary). This shows juveniles are manipulating the justice system, and in fact old enough to take responsibility for the crimes they commit. In today society. They are being tried every day in juvenile courts, they are receiving shortened sentences, and they are being released and given a clean slate and the opportunity to continue living their lives in peaceful and happy bliss, all while their victims and their families are left to suffer forever. Because the courts and juvenile rights advocates believe that second chances shou...
When today's youth commit crimes it is often the taxpayers that have to pay for it. In many cases, when the crimes include damage to property, theft of personal belongings or merchandise the public are required to pay for the damages through taxes and raised prices in stores. When it comes to theft, the public would be required to pay more money in the long run for a product that is often stolen due to the rate of loss on it. When it comes to property damage we, the owners, are responsible for replacing what has been damaged and paying to replace or repair the item from our own pockets, or to place claims using house or automobile insurance, causing our premiums to rise. Youth crime rates seem to have been increasing over the past couple of years. Most crimes these days are committed by youths who are often under the influence of drugs and alcohol, who have an impaired sense of perception. Police Chief Julian Fantino of the Toronto Police Service says, "Youth crime rates have been rising in recent years even though other violent crime rates have been decreasing," (www.cbc.ca). With youth crime on the rise we the public are forced to pay increasingly for their mistakes.