The Youth Criminal Justice Act is an act for youth justice, it applies to youths at the age of twelve to seventeen who are alleged to committing criminal offences. Also known as the YCJA, the act will take into account the interests of victims and ensure that youth will have meaningful consequences such as rehabilitation, community service, and use of juvenile facilities and so on. Even though many people think that the youth are not treated equally, some think differently. I agree that the Youth Criminal Justice Act instills equality among the youth because no matter their race. The Youth Criminal Justice Act will give youth a voice in court no matter how bad the crime was, they will help give the youth a fair chance at their consequence no matter their gender, and youth who commit offences must take responsibility for their actions. …show more content…
The youth’s lawyer will help defend them when needed. Once in court, the youth and their lawyer may be given evidence on their own behalf. Youth don’t have to speak in court because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The judge will not hold the youth’s silence against them. After all the witnesses in the court have given their evidence the judge will make a decision whether they are guilty or not guilty. While this may be the first time the youth has attended court, the court clerk will call all the charges against you. From 1997 to 2015 students in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were tested for drugs and through hair samples and over 2,300 students were investigated positive. (Karissa Donkin, Discredited Drug Testing Used in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick." CBC News, New Brunswick.) Many of these students went to a court order for their actions but some others didn’t because other factors made up the lawyer’s decision whether to take the
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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...
The YCJA teaches youth that their actions were unacceptable but there will still be consequences without giving them heavy jail time. One way that the government does this is through “conferencing”. Conferencing allows youth to participate in a program with the victim and the victim’s family members to learn about the consequences of their behavior and to develop ways to make amends. Typically, a conference would bring together in an informal setting the offender, his or her family, the victim, and the victim’s supporters. An open discussion about the offence and its impact would then begin with a resolution being determined at the end a simple apology might even be the end result. The idea of conferencing came from family group conferencing practiced in New Zealand and Australia as well as aboriginal circle sentencing. In 1997, the House of Commons Justice Committee suggested that the youth criminal justice system adopt conferencing as a sentencing option. Conferencing is highly beneficial to the offender because it gives them an opportunity to see first ...
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines Probation as a period of time given to someone who commits a crime and instead of being incarcerated are allowed to spend their sentence in the community based on conditions set aside by the courts. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probation) The task was given to me to build the ultimate model of Probation Services. After careful consideration and great thought this is the route I decided to take. I believe that parents play a great role in some of the decisions their children make. The decisions children make today are a reflection of their parents. My focus on this probation model is to place both child and parent in an institution were they would undergo a period of restoration of family values, rehabilitation, parenting courses, academia and counselling. The ages of these juveniles will range between the ages of ten (10) to seventeen (17) years old.Therefore I stand for institutionalized probation and how this probation will assist in instilling family values.
Vandergoot concludes “the goals of the youth legislation…its major objectives are reducing the use of incarceration for young offenders…the YCJA emphasizes restraint, accountability, proportionality, and discretion… it encourages use of extra judicial measures” ( Vandergoot, 2006, p30). Vandergoot determines that the objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is in the interest of youth, however, she accounts for the long term effect on adolescence as well. Vandergoot concludes the emotional and social consequences as youth interact with the system. Vandergoot claims the system leaves juveniles “debased”, suffering an “assault on their self-image”, that “block or snares in the adolescent psyche”, ultimately lowering their motivation and self-esteem which advances youth to have the “they think I’m bad I’ll show them I’m bad” mentality(Vandergoot, 2006). The mentality that derives from direct encounters with the youth justice system, often damages the adolescence completely disregarding the purpose of a youth justice system.
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.
The juvenile system was first established in the United States around 1899 when Illinois had their first court appearance including a juvenile. This then led to the Nation’s first juvenile system being created, which was for youth under the age of eighteen who have been convicted of crimes. Up until then, most youth were tried as an adult until the system was put into place. The system has different sections in which they youth is taken in such as: intake, adjudication, disposition, and post adjudicatory.
The United States, a country who has prisons filled with juvenile delinquents. Many of the offenders are arrested for status offenses, but there are also offenders who are incarcerated for serious crimes. Are these offenders getting the treatment needed to succeed after their release? Are the punishments in the juvenile detention centers creating more problems? Is the juvenile justice system addressing the needs of those juveniles participating in the system? The answer to these questions will be answered from viewing three separate documentaries on the juvenile justice system.