More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction of children's rights
Introduction of children's rights
The importance of promoting the rights of children
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction of children's rights
A court of law is a council with the power to settle legal arguments between different groups and execute the administering of justice in authoritative, civilian, and illegitimate issues, in agreement with the rule of law. Before the existence of a separate court intended for youths in New South Wales (NSW), young criminals received very much alike treatment compared to their mature analogues. The main aim of sentencing was penalty. But by the late nineteenth century, affected by American and British child-saving campaigns, NSW adopted the concept of addressing the welfare requirements of youth perpetrators. The objective was to free them from their lives’ hardships. Devoting to the recovery of youth perpetrators in this manner was regarded as a way to safeguard the …show more content…
(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)
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
With increased media coverage of violent juvenile behavior, legislators began to pass laws to toughen up on juvenile crime. Many laws made it easier to waive juveniles into adult courts, or even exclude juveniles who had committed serious crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sentences to be handed out for offenders were lengthened and made much more severe. As a result, the juvenile courts began to resemble the adult courts. Yet, this movement’s influence began to fade, and by the turn of the century, another shift had occurred. In the current juvenile courts, a balanced approach is emphasized. While the court deals with chronic and dangerous offenders with a heavy hand, needy youth who need help to get back on track are still assisted under the parens patriae philosophy. Restorative justice has come to be the preferred method of today’s juvenile courts. In an overall sense, the modern juvenile court has taken on a paternalistic view similar to parens patriae towards youths who are in need of guidance, while punitively punishing offenders who do not respond to the helping hand extended to
It was during the mid nineteenth century in England when the parliament initially recognised juvenile delinquency as a distinctive social phenomenon and accepted the responsibility not only for young offenders, but also for the children who, though not in trouble with the law, required full care and protection. Children who stood before the courts were no longer seen as little adults but were seen as beings in their own rights who were entitled because they lack full responsibility for their actions. Through this change in status it accomplished the introduction of reformatory rather than punitive treatment. A reformatory system undoubtedly distinguishes a child’s offence from an adult crime replaced penal systems which made little dedicated provisions for children. This departure culminated in Herbert Samuels Children Act 1908 (Margaret May 2002). The Children Act 1908 represented a key step in the progress of the idea that children were a special category of problem. Through the establishment of Juvenile Courts which were criminal courts in terms of the procedures and giving them jurisdiction over the care and protection issues. The Juvenile Courts became the family law courts which dispensed family justice. The courts and the state can intervene for the first time in working-class family life when children are seen to be immoral, conditions which were regarded as neglect included: truancy, begging, being beyond control etc...
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 ...
Aftercare programs are used often with juveniles in hopes of preventing recidivism. Recidivism is of high concern to the criminal justice system in that the safety of the public depends on low recidivism rates. Juvenile Incarceration facilities have programs set up, such as education and pro-social behavior classes, to promote bettering the juvenile’s life. However, research has shown that the progress made while incarcerated slowly declines upon release. This is testimony to the importance of aftercare programs in preventing recidivism.
Vandergoot determines that the reasoning capacity of an adolescent, the ability to make legal decisions, and filter unnecessary information is unclear to a juvenile in the justice system; the vagueness of youth stepping into the courts prevents them from fully participating in the justice system. ( Vandergoot, 2006). As a result of this impreciseness youth encounter Vandergoot concludes a separate justice system allocated for youth to adhere to adolescent needs. Vandergoot discusses the Youth Criminal Justice Act a justice system devised to adhere to youth needs. She summarizes the system that benefits young offenders in contrast to adult offenders. 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. Mary Vandergoot’s Justice for Young Offenders Their Needs, Our Responses clearly emphasizes the need
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 focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, rather than to imprison and punish like the systems adult counterpart. According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. This has lead to the development of a separate justice system for juveniles that was initially designed to assist troubled juveniles providing them with protection, treatment, and guidance. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “how can we help the child”, “why did the child commit the crime” to “was the crime committed”. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. The prerequisites for transfer to adult court are the duty to protect the public from violent youths, serious crime, and the lack of rehabilitation chance from the juvenile court. According to Flesch (2004) many jurisdictions handle the issue of serious juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. Charging a juvenile as an adult is done by a method which is called waiver to adult court. This waiver allows adult criminal court to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles and handle the juvenile’s case as an adult’s case would be tried. According to Flesch (2004) a juvenile is both tried and if convicted of the crime the juvenile will be sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived from the juvenile court. Waiver to adult court initially was viewe...
When our thoughts turn to the criminal justice system it is only a natural instinct to assume everyone associated with policing, courts, and corrections will have to deal with juveniles sometime in their career. Young people in today’s society can be so easily influenced by social situations, peer pressure, and family members. The courts in the United States are faced with difficult decisions on a daily basis. Sentencing juveniles to adult facilities for their crimes is becoming a common trend in the justice system today; however it is not a deterrent whatsoever. “The current policies of juvenile bind over to adult criminal court and severe sentencing have been unsuccessful
We are all affected by crime, whether we are a direct victim, a family member or a friend of a victim. It can interfere with your daily life, your personal sense of safety and your ability to trust others.
Youth delinquent behaviors have been a consistent problem facing families in the recent decades. These behaviors cause tension within family systems and often result in serious consequences not only for the youth exhibiting behaviors, but also for the entirety of the youth’s family. Recent research has provided several different effective treatment and prevention techniques for youth delinquency. Multisystemic therapy, a therapy focusing on the importance of external factors as cause for youth delinquent behaviors has become among the leading intervention strategies for delinquency in the United States. Multisystemic therapy (MST) is an effective treatment for youth delinquency, because it has proven long-term success, is attempting to incorporate
In today’s generation there are many children and teens that commit crimes to satisfy their self being. Every day we see in the news about the reasons why children or teens commit crimes like murder or homicide. Sentencing juveniles to life in prison is not a right response to prevent homicide and serious murder, because their brains are not fully develop and the bad environment they live in. Teenagers or children need to be remain unformed of preventing crimes in today’s society. With this said, juvenile’s mental brains, backgrounds and growth are the reasons why they are not proficient to maintain themselves in a prison cell.