For a long time now, the age of criminal responsibility (the age in which someone can be tried as an adult for a crime) in Canada has been set at the age of 12. Over roughly the last 2 years, a great deal of citizens have been fighting to have the age of criminal responsibility raised to the age of 16, believing that 12 is too young. On the other hand, a handful of people want it to stay the same. Surprisingly, close to no one is in favour for lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10, when that is what the age of criminal responsibility needs to be changed to. The reason why the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered is because at the age of 10, children know the difference between right and wrong, lowering it can be a strong …show more content…
Knowing that the age of criminal responsibility is at the age of 10 can make children think twice about the consequences to their actions. Not only that, both parents and teachers alike will need to put a greater effort in teaching their children the negative outcomes committing a crime can lead to. In September of 2013, an eleven-year old was arrested by a police officer for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year old girl. The eleven-year old knew that he would not be charged because of his age, and said to the police officer who arrested him; “You got me. So what are you gonna do?” This child was well aware that nothing can be done to punish him for this action, and he is most certainly not the only kid in the world who knows this. If the age was criminal responsibility was lowered to 10, this child could have been punished for what he did and he would know that he couldn’t get away with this again. Unfortunately, the age of criminal responsibility wasn’t 10, and the child was able to get away with committing sexual assault, and could do it again knowing that nothing can be done to stop
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
According to Center for Disease Control and Protection, about 4,700 people under age twenty one die from injuries involving underage drinking every year. Illegal alcohol consumption has been a major problem with high school students around the nation. Lowering the drinking age from twenty one would result in major consequences for America’s adolescents. By lowering the drinking age, alcohol would be more accessible to those who choose to participate in underage drinking. The desire to drink for teens and young adults between the ages of fourteen and twenty can be caused by peer pressure or an act of rebellion. One beer might not seem like a big deal at the time, but it could lead to a life of addiction and alcoholism.
Unfortunately, these two cases are not uncommon in the justice world. As a matter of fact, “by 2010, Florida had sentenced more than a hundred children to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses,” (Stevenson 153). One of the primary reasons for this originated in the idea that harsher punishments will act as a deterrent for kids who want to break the law. However, recent studies have suggested that because the prefrontal lobe of the brain is still in development until the age of twenty, children don’t have the mental capacity to make the best decisions, especially under stress. Additionally, children normally wouldn’t have access to weapons or drugs, which allows the argument that adults should be held responsible for making such objects available to them in the first place (Reaves).
Twenty years ago Don Henley sang a song called “The End of the Innocence,” and portrayed a coming of age scenario. In Henley’s song, he sings the lines, “Offer up your best defense/ but this is the end/ this is the end of the innocence.” The disputable age-of-accountability permeates American society. In the essay, “Too Immature for the Death Penalty,” Paul Raeburn offers his defense into the chemical and environmental make-up of juveniles in their decision-making processes. However, the issue of personal accountability, or an end of innocence, is never brought up. Regardless of age, Americans cannot avoid decisions, because decisions determine destinies. Individuals choose either the path of wisdom or the path of folly, and no one can postpone or sidestep these choices. When does responsibility begin and accountability end? While juveniles’ brains may not be fully developed, juveniles must be held accountable for their actions. No matter what age group is involved, murder is still murder, and requires the death penalty to enforce the consequences of the crime.
In the late 1960’s to mid-70’s the legal drinking age was 18 because the voting age of 21 was lowered to 18. However, in 1984 a bill was passed that every state in the United States was to change the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. Although this is a highly controversial topic many young adults believe lowering the drinking age back to 18 is best because if they may vote at the age of 18 then, they should be allowed purchase alcoholic beverages. In an article “Should the U.S. lower its drinking age?” written by Brandon Griggs introduces the pros and cons of lowering the drinking age. Griggs explains two generations ago young adults didn’t have to worry much about getting caught drinking or buying their way out to purchase alcohol. Nowadays
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.
“Our youths now love luxury, they have bad manners, they have disrespect for authority, disrespect for older people…” Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates acknowledges the escalation of delinquency among youth in the early age’s .The rise of young offenders furthers the Canadian government to record juvenile offenders, in addition, devise an act to better control the epidemic of young delinquents. The topic of proposal is the effectiveness of the youth justice system in its response to crime. Firstly, in order to determine the effectiveness of the youth justice system, one must grasp the premise that is a delinquency, in particular a young delinquents. Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the first act imposed in regards to young offenders,
Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).
The controversy on the proper drinking age is one that has been repeatedly discussed and researched over the years. Its common to hear the argument “If someone is old enough to take a bullet for their country, they should be allowed to drink alcohol.” But is that enough justification? Some would say no. “According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) it is estimated that in 2004 there were more than 1,700 student deaths, 599,000 injuries, and 696,000 assaults annually associated with excessive drinking” (Fennell 247). Given these numbers, would lowering the drinking age really be the best thing for America’s youth?
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
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.
Upon committing a crime in Canada, a judge must determine not only if the accused did in fact commit that crime, but also if they were in control of their actions by assessing their state of mind. Accountability needs to be determined of an individual action to be convicted of crimes. An individual does not have accountability of their crimes if they have no knowledge of their actions or do not understand right from wrong. If the accused is found that they were not in control of their actions, and have no accountability to the crime they committed they are deemed not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (Nevid, Greene, Johnson, Taylor & Macnab. 2001). Regarding not criminally responsible individuals, an extensive assessment needs to be conducted and public safety needs to be accounted for. Canada has made great improvements on the criminal code and the way not criminally responsible individuals are cared for.
Under fire from the date of its creation, the debate over the validity of the Young Offender’s Act continues. Should the YOA remain in its current form as a part of the Canadian legal system? An examination of the reasons it is seen as being ineffective, the need for change, and the suggested amendments and substitutes will provide an accurate picture of the situation from which a conclusion can be drawn. The young offenders act in its current form is nearly optimal. However, there enough reasons for its alteration that a serious consideration of amendments should be considered.
Today?s court system is left with many difficult decisions. One of the most controversial being whether to try juveniles as adults or not. With the number of children in adult prisons and jails rising rapidly, questions are being asked as to why children have been committing such heinous crimes and how will they be stopped. The fact of the matter is that it is not always the children's fault for their poor choices and actions; they are merely a victim of their environment or their parents. Another question asked is how young is too young. Children who are too young to see an R rated film unaccompanied are being sent to adult prisons. The only boundaries that seem to matter when it comes to being an adult are laws that restrain kids from things such as alcohol, pornography, and other materials seen as unethical. Children that are sent to adult prison are going to be subjected to even more unprincipled ideas and scenes. When children can be sent to jail for something as minor as a smash and grab burglary, the judicial system has errors. The laws that send juveniles to adult prisons are inhumane, immoral, and unjust. Kids are often incompetent, which leads to unfair trials. Adult prisons are also very dangerous for minors, and in many cases this leads to more juvenile crimes.