In this essay, I will be examining how the court system can fail to deliver justice for particular cases and people’s circumstances, as well as looking at alternatives to court, like circle sentencing, restorative sentencing and alternatives for children to the formal court system, as outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). Crime is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. On the other side of this is justice; the quality of being fair and reasonable.
In general, the adversarial court system facilitates various methods of achieving just and fair outcomes in the criminal justice system. However, the court system is not the only route in sentencing offenders with
…show more content…
For many people, Legal Aid is the only option to defend their cases. In an Australia Institute report, ‘Justice for All,’ it is estimated that, out of 1.7 million Australians encountering legal problems each year, nearly a third will not receive legal advice due to financial reasons and lack of knowledge. Although Legal Aid is a valuable and useful resource, it is only available to the those on the lowest income, due to the lack of funding from the government. Also, Legal Aid lawyers often don’t have enough time to adequately talk to their clients about cases, making it difficult to present an in-depth case. This lack of funding forces people to take the case into their own hands, which is mostly unsuccessful due to the complicated mechanisms of the legal system. These faults in the system make the courts less effective in achieving …show more content…
This voluntary alternative gives the offender the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and identify the impact they have had on their victim, while also giving the victim the chance to confront the offender and take steps to repair the harm done. The victim can ask the offender questions about the crime and the offender may apologise or make amends for their actions. Restorative justice is confrontational and can be difficult for both parties but is proven to help both the offender and victim. While it is confrontational for the victim, for some it can be better than testifying in court. Data shows that restorative justice greatly helps victims in their recovery from the offence. Although the benefits of restorative justice in adult offenders is unclear, it significantly reduces the number of reoffenders in youth. For this reason, restorative justice is mostly used for minor infringements and within the youth justice system.
For children and young offenders, there are other programs that offer alternatives to court to achieving justice. The Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) is a scheme that provides alternatives to court proceedings for children who have committed particular offences. The act outlines the use of youth justice conferences, cautions and warnings. The act was introduced to provide young offenders
The Youth Criminal Justice Act has many concerns creating inequalities in the restorative justice approach. For instance, juvenile delinquents who develop from a background that is impoverished may lack the ability to satisfy the reparative objectives of punishment and may not be ready to be reintegrated back into socie...
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
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.
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
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the first act imposed in regards to young offenders,
In history, crimes have been dealt with by the justice system according to its severity as well as the offender: if the crime committed was not very serious and the offender was deemed “non-delinquent”, or “free of any real criminal disposition”, they would be cautioned or fined. However, were the crime a more serious one and the offender appeared to have a “criminal character”, they would receive more severe and more deterrent punishment (Garland, 2001: 42).
Youth detention is designed to house Juvenile crime offenders rather than placing juveniles most commonly aged 10-17 in prison they are sent to Juvenile Detention centres. These Juveniles commit more property crime then violent crimes, and generally will commit less serious crimes like graffiti, shoplifting, vandalism, motor vehicle theft, fare evasion, road traffic offences and unlawful entry. However in early years in Australia children as young as six years old were once incarcerated for these crimes. However in today’s society the approach to young offenders is quite different. Prison is now seen as last resort solution for most juveniles. Juvenile Detention centres are managed by Youth Justices Services, they follow the belief that young
As discussed in depth, there are all types of crimes that are committed by young offenders these days and the offenders possess a number of different characteristics. There have been many theoretical crime explanations that have been formed over the years that attempt to explain the reasoning behind the question of why certain individuals, both young and old, are more prone to commit crimes. The discussion of punishment practices are also important because it displays the many approaches that have been taken to ensure that juvenile delinquents are being treated fairly, but punished and rehabilitated all simultaneously. Many methods fall under this kind of approach referred to as the restorative justice approach such as neighborhood conference committees, victim impact panels, sentencing circles, and community impact panels which all attempt to rehabilitate the offender, but also to involve members of society including the victims/survivors of crimes (Siegel, 2009). It is believed and hoped with the continuation of processes, practices, and programs in place such as these that juvenile crime will eventually decrease bringing more order to our society as a whole. Overall, this paper strives to bring awareness to juvenile delinquency by
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.
In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.
High rates of recidivism demonstrate that the judicial system has been unsuccessful in determining criminal activity. Alternatives to incarceration known as restorative justice has existed for centuries, yet has only been recently implicated into the Canadian judicial system. The practices of restorative justice have been proven very successful for minor offences among adults and youth in bringing together the offenders, victims, and the community. However, acts of violence and serious offences committed by youths have no place in these resolutions. The act of violence is traumatizing to the victim. There is a high chance of re-conviction of a violent offence and these types of offences are too complicated to be resolved outside of the judicial system.
Agreeing on a definition of restorative justice has proved difficult. One definition is a theory of justice that focuses mostly on repairing the harm caused by criminal behaviour. The reparation is done through a cooperative process that includes all the stakeholders. Restorative justice can also be explained as an approach of justice that aims to satisfy the needs of the victims and offenders, as well as the entire community. The most broadly accepted definition for restorative justice, however, is a process whereby all the parties that have a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve on how to deal with the aftermath. This process is largely focused around reparation, reintegration and participation of victims. That is to say, it is a victim-centred approach to criminal justice, and it perceives crime differently than the adversarial system of justice.
RESTORITIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS SHOULD BE INCREASED-Draft Good morning all and welcome, today the area of the law we will be focusing on is that restorative justice for youth offenders and why restorative justice for youth offenders should be increased. Restorative justice is a philosophy in the legal world that adds value and direction into the juvenile sentence this legal concept is defined in YOUTH JUSTICE ACT 1992. Youth offenders vary from the ages 0-17 years old, but in order to be criminally charged with an offense you must be over the age of 10. Although restorative justice is congressional some people argue otherwise and say restorative justice should be reduce or matter in fact ended. Increasing the restorative justice for youth offenders will be more beneficial to theam as they will learn where they went wrong, as they will have to find a way in order to repay the victim.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,
Stokes, D. 2004. Submission to the Youth Justice Agency. [Online] Available from: www.youthreach.ie [Accessed 7th May 2012]