More handpicked essays just for you.
Ways to prevent juvenile delinquency
History of Juvenile Justice System Proposals
Solution To Juvenile Delinquency
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
This quote is definitely true when based on how low the minimum age required to give a youth an adult sentence. The age minimum of 14 is far too high and should be brought down to around 11 because as said in the quote above, “...it does not deal effectively with extreme violence...” this relates to the age where people who commit severe crimes like murder under the age of 14, are easily getting away other than the fact they are usually put into years …show more content…
When bailing an accused person it usually means they are set out with a set of rules or with a surety (a person who promises to supervise an accused person while they are out on bail). If the offender does not break the conditions made by the court, the bonds person will not have to pay any of the bail fees, therefore making it free. “In some cases, a bail hearing, which is like a short trial, is held and a judge or a justice of the peace decides whether the accused will get out on bail.” I find that the bail system is not effective because the quote says they will see if the person is able to get out of bail and be set free due to his actions, but can’t there be serious offenders that just act nice during bail just to get out and do another offense? This also applies when they are still in bail. “Keyfer Dykstra was on police bail when he was involved in the gang murder of a 19-year-old man.” Keyfer was a 14-year old guy and was on bail for confidential reasons but was able to re-offend because of bail. This also shows that if we give people a chance to get away using bail, they would not learn of what their wrongdoings were and most likely re-offend. Removing bail will
The purpose of this report is to provide the courts and judges in the matter of Martin A. case an overview and critical analysis of his case through the evaluation process of Youth Court Action Planning Plan (YCAPP). Before discussing Martin A., it is a good idea to understand the roles and functions of the YCAPP. Over the course of history, the Canadian legal system has always struggled with successfully dealing with youth offenders until the introduction of youth criminal justice act in 2003. Youth criminal justice act has reduced the number of cases, charges, and convictions against the youth hence resulting in a much more efficient way to deal with youth crime across the country (Department of justice, 2017). A vital component
The YCJA also known as the Youth Justice criminal act was put into action by the liberals on April 1, 2003. This act/law was created to prevent young offenders ages 12-17. Ages 14-17 can receive adult sentence depending on the seriousness of the crime. But in my opinion the YCJA is an ineffective law because it puts public safety at risk. The policy I put down was that youth 13 and under cannot be charged as an adult. The reason I think this is and horrible policy because they are suggesting that if you are under the age of 13 you can do whatever you want, and only put through minor punishments such as community service or writing an essay of what you did wrong. The case study I based my argument on is the Medicine hat girl who killed her entire
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.
When thinking about youth crime do you envision a country with a high rate of young offenders, gang activity and re-offending? Or do you envision a country with a significant increase of young offenders either being successfully reintegrated into society, or helped by a community when seeking forgiveness for a minor offence that they have committed? Since the passing of Bill C-7 or the Youth Criminal Justice Act on February 4, 2002 by the House of Commons, many significant improvements have been made in Canada’s youth criminal justice system on how to handle and care for young offenders. Some of the reasons why Bill C-7 was passed in Canada was because the bill before it, Young Offenders Act, had many problems and suffered large amounts scrutiny by Canadian Citizens. It’s because of these reasons that Bill C-7 had been revised multiple times before being passed, having previously been called Bill C-68, March of 1999 and Bill C-3, in October 1999. With this all being said, many Canadian citizens are still left to ponder a question of if there is even significant improvement in our Youth Criminal justice system when comparing the Youth Criminal Justice Act to the Young Offenders Act? In my opinion, there are many significant improvements that have been made in the Youth Criminal Justice Act which have aided our justice system. By addressing the weaknesses of the Young Offenders Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act has helped Canada improve in the field of youth criminal justice by implementing better Extrajudicial Measures, ensuring effective reintegration of a young person once released from custody and providing much more clarification on sentencing options.
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 problem of dealing with juvenile justice has plagued are country for years, since the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Prior to that development, delinquent juveniles had to be processed through the adult justic3e system which gave much harsher penalties. By 1945, separate juvenile courts existed in every single state. Similar to the adult system, all through most of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system was based upon a medical/rehabilitative representation. The new challenges of the juvenile court were to examine, analyze, and recommend treatment for offenders, not to deliver judgment fault or fix responsibility. The court ran under the policy of “parens patriae” that intended that the state would step in and act as a parent on behalf of a disobedient juvenile. Actions were informal and a juvenile court judge had a vast sum of discretion in the nature of juvenile cases, much like the discretion afforded judges in adult unlawful settings until the 1970s. In line with the early juvenile court’s attitude of shielding youth, juvenile offenders’ position was often in reformatories or instruction schools that were intended, in speculation, to keep them away from the terrible influences of society and to encourage self-control through accurate structure and very unsympathetic discipline. Opposing to the fundamental theory, all through the first part of the century, the places that housed juveniles were frequently unsafe and unhealthy places where the state warehoused delinquent, deserted, and deserted children for unclear periods. Ordinary tribulations included lack of medical care, therapy programs, and even sometimes food. Some very poor circumstances continue even today.
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
...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.
The YCJA took effect on April 1, 2003, emphasizing the use of diversion programs that were aiming to decrease the use of over-reliance on incarceration for young non-violent persons (The Youth Criminal Justice Act Summary and Background, 2016). Extrajudicial measures were one of the main tactics. Extrajudicial measures should be used in all cases where they are be able to hold a young person accountable for his/her actions, be efficient to hold...
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 the Canadian population ranging from 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 the 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 principles of these laws have been debated for a long time.
This paper describes the various legislations and movements that were established in 19th century to address the issue of juvenile justice system. It outlines the challenges faced by the legislation and movements and their implications in addressing the issues of the juvenile justice system.
In the article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences”, by Garinger, she argues that juveniles should not be treated as adults if they commit horrible crimes. Garinger states that juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison without parole. She states that the court is considering life in prison without parole for juveniles who commit capital crimes. Garinger says that juveniles are immature, and still developing, so they can not be held to the same standards as adults. The writer adds that as a juvenile court judge, she has seen how juveniles can change and may become rehabilitated.
Out of our fifty states “twelve currently set sixteen years of age as their minimum age to prosecute juveniles, four states set the age at 17 and fifteen states (including the federal government) requires that the offender be eighteen in order to receive the death penalty”. (Monroe, 2009)States that do no specify a minimum age for prosecution of a juvenile can sentence to death anyone sixteen years of age and older. The main idea is to see if it’s really justice to prosecute a juvenile as an adult knowing that their mental capacity is not of an adult. (Levinson) Since 2003 many states ha...
(http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/research-monographs-1/monograph26/mono26.pdf page 83) During the 1990s, punishments were brought into the Court. They permitted the “active” recovery of perpetrators. These are results which need the active involvement of the youth perpetrator in his or her recovery. The nature of these results is such that the youth can only accomplish the result through, for instance, demonstration of efforts to alter his or her actions and/or of remorse. Youth Justice Conferencing is an element of the Young Offenders Act 1997. Though this Act is evidently about redirecting first-time and less severe perpetrators from the Children’s Court, it nevertheless contributes to the variety of results possible for the Court. Under the Young Offenders Act, it was possible for the Court to warn a youth, and also assign them to youth justice conferencing. The ideology and objectives which form the foundations of conferences debatably assist the progress of the youth’s recovery better than a majority of the punishments found in section thirty-three of the Children (Criminal Proceedings)