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.
In February 2002, the House of Commons passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The Act came into effect in April 2003, replacing the Young Offenders Act (Mapleleaf). The new legislation attempts to balance the legalistic framework of the Young Offenders Act and the social needs approach underlying the Juvenile Delinquents Act. This goal is apparent in the Declaration of Principle stating th...
Jenson, Jeffrey and Howard, Matthew. "Youth Crime, Public Policy, and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms." Social Work 43 (1998): 324-32
felt by many that the change needed in the area of delinquency within the First
Voltaire once said, “Fear follows crime and is its punishment.” (Voltaire). Respectively, the concept to use opportunities that attempt to restore moral justice in Canadian youth punishment is indispensable. The Youth Criminal Justice Act enacted on April 1st, 2003 recognizes in the preamble that incarceration should only be exercised as a last resort sentence for violent youth ages twelve to seventeen, (Youth Criminal Justice Act (S.C. 2002, c. 1), 2002; Barron, 2009; Tustin & Lutes, 2011; Olivo, 2012, pp. 234-235, 456; Justice Education Society of British Columbia , 2013). The restorative justice approach enables consideration of many youth suffering from mental disorders that need more mental health support than punishment (Bala, Youth Criminal Justice Law, 2003; Gretton & Clift, 2011) corresponding to the evergrowing concern of more imprisoned youth, despite the decreasing delinquency rate (Ruddick , 2004; Linton, 2003). Therefore, reintegration and rehabilitation techniques are imperative to resolving youth in conflict with the law (Savignac, 2009; Anand, 1999; Doob A. N., 2004). An analysis of the complications and advantages of the restorative justice opportunities concerning young offenders ages twelve to seventeen will endorse that collaborating family connections, educating youth while integrating gang prevention, and community involvement will positively enhance youth prosperity and societal security.
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.
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 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 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.
...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.
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...
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.
... crime and should adopt policies that compliment better socialization of youths. The seriousness of youth crime trends must be addressed with punishments that pay retribution to society. It is equally important that youths are not excluded from society by a legal system that does not recognize their special needs. Rehabilitation measures must address the socialization problems that children are facing with their families, schools, and media pressures. Children will be given alternatives to their delinquent behaviours that may not have been obvious or initially appealing. These changes will result in the prevention and decline of youth gang related crime. Youth gangs are not inevitable. Some social reorganization backed by government policies will eliminate the youth perception that youth gangs are socially acceptable. The Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002) adopts socially focused policies that will better address the social disorientation of youth that lead them into youth gangs. Its implementation is a positive step towards effectively dealing with the changed social forces affecting Canadian youths. Better socialization of youths is paramount to eliminating youth gangs in Canada.
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.
(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)
Stokes, D. 2004. Submission to the Youth Justice Agency. [Online] Available from: www.youthreach.ie [Accessed 7th May 2012]