A 13-year-old girl from Alberta was charged guilty for murdering her parents and her younger brother on April 22,06. The girl was sentenced six years in jail, followed up by four years supervision in the community. During the trial the girl spoke up and said that her 23-year-old Jeremy Steinke (charged with three counts of first degree murder), broke into her home and attacked and killed her mother and father. The girl also testified that Jeremy ordered her to stab her brother, which she did once, then Jeremy slit her brother's throat. The girl spoke up and confirmed that she and her boyfriend did talk about killing her parents before, but as a joke. The crown anticipated that she was an equal participant in the killings of her family, because of the disapproval her parents had with her relationship with …show more content…
The 13-year-old who murdered her family got the rights to have her identity hidden because she is under 18years of age, but her boyfriend was an adult offender who got his name mentioned. YCJA addresses underlying behavior such as, medical conditions, circumstances, etc that influence the adolescents to commit an offence. In Lee Bonneau’s case the male criminal was known to be having such medical conditions that may have influenced a crime, although he is in a treatment centre. The YCJA respects all rights of young offenders and the victims, the YCJA provides meaningful consequences due to the crime, condition, and age. Adolescent need to be held accountable for their crimes, and have a larger opportunity to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. I believe that the YCJA is doing an excellent job, protecting rights of young offenders and giving them consequence they deserve for their crimes. It assures me that many adolescent will have a future, treatments given to children in abnormal conditions or
Most people don 't look at every aspect of a crime. They don 't think about everyone that was affected, other than the victim. In her article "On Punishment and Teen Killers", Jennifer Jenkins explains how her younger sister was taken from her by a murderer who shot and killed her. In her article she states, "So few who work on the juvenile offender side can truly understand what the victims of their crimes sometimes go through. Some never recover." Jenkins is explaining her personal experience of losing her younger sister to help others understand what the families of the victim have to deal with for the rest of their lives. She brings a point of view that most people have never been in because they 've never experienced what it 's like to have a loved one taken away from you by murder. In her story she also states, "If brain development were the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world." Many people believe that the supreme court needs to be more lenient on juveniles because their brain is not fully developed as that of an adult, but brain development cannot be used as an excuse because as Jenkins explains, the teens would be killing at the same rate all over the world. Jenkins also brings up a good point about how the US as a whole needs to step up to prevent these crimes from happening. Jenkins states, "We in America have to own to this particular problem, with weapons so easily available to our youth, and the violence-loving culture we raise them. She is trying to bring awareness to society that America is also at fault for these crimes. Furthermore, she also explains why life sentencing is not as cruel as some may feel it is when she says, "… a life sentencing still allows a great deal of good living to be done, even from behind bars, far more than these teen killers gave to our murdered love
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
If a family member was murdered, a family member was murdered, age should not dictate if the punishment for homicide will be more lenient or not. If anyone not just juveniles has the capabilities to take someone's life and does so knowing the repercussions, they should be convicted as an adult. In the case of Jennifer Bishop Jenkins who lost her sister, the husband and their unborn child, is a strong advocate of juveniles being sentenced to life without parole. In her article “Jennifer Bishop Jenkins On Punishment and Teen Killers” she shows the world the other side of the spectrum, how it is to be the victim of a juvenile in a changing society where people are fighting against life sentences for juveniles. As she states in the article “There are no words adequate to describe what this kind of traumatic loss does to a victims family. So few who work on the juvenile offender side can truly understand what the victims of their crimes sometimes go through. Some never
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.
Steven Truscott was a 14 year old boy who was sentenced to life in prison after being accused of the murder of Lynn Harper. It was June 9, 1959 when Lynne Harper, a 12 year old girl, was heading towards a nearby school after having family dinner with her parents Leslie and Shirley. She was heading towards a nearby school playground in Clinton, Ontario where she came across Steven Truscott. She asked for a ride to a nearby highway. Steven Truscott agreed. Lynn clambered onto the handlebars of the 14-year-old boy's bike and they pedaled off. This short ride would trigger a chain of events that will hunt the lives of many for roughly half a decade. This would change the lives of two families, horrify a community, and bring doubts to the justice system protecting everyone’s lives. Lynne’s partially nude body was found nearby a bush in a farmer’s field two days after the bicycle ride with Steven. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death with her own blouse. Almost immediately, Steven was assumed to be the likely killer, although there was no physical evidence linking him to the murder. Steven was targeted as a consequence of being the last person to see Lynne alive. Two after the body was found; Steven was charged with the murder and was tried by the court as an adult. The trial lasted 15 days and Steven was sentenced to hang, which was after changed to life in prison. Now when did this misfortune start? It could have been when Steven agreed to give Lynne a ride, or it could have been when there was no physical evidence pointing to Truscott. Even if Steven was a potential suspect, there was no reason of why he should have been treated the way he was.
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.
On the evidence from my essay and research the YCJA has been remarkably successful in bringing about changes in police charging practices with youth. The YCJA offers Rehabilitation and reintegration in addition to the right of privacy and being given a second
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
...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.
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...
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...
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
One common misconception is that many people argue that Youth deserve a second chance when committing offences. However, if the consequences were more severe, or enforced the 1st time, more youth would think twice before committing offences repeatedly. The Youth Criminal Justice Act states that, Canadian society should have a youth criminal justice system that commands respect, takes into account the interests of victims, fosters responsibility and ensures accountability through meaningful consequences. (Page 1851 2008 M...