In my view the youth justice system should be dealt in a better way with few amendments. This will not imply that the young children mischievous acts won’t be dealt without any response. There are many various ways that can be dealt, like transfer of resources to children services, various forms of provisions and some special staff to deal with adolescents. The extensive and unfortunate scaling back of youth service over recent years has led to a loss of such expertise.
The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years .In other terms we can also say that children who are below the age of 10 years won’t be charged or for that matter arrested for a crime.
In Europe 14 or 15 is more usual, with some countries like Belgium and Luxemburg as high as 18. In Luxemburg the age is 18 years and the same is in Belgium for all but for most serious offences. In each of the four Scandinavian countries the age of criminal responsibility is 15 years and shared by Czech Republic and Estonia. I feel that a child is not cognitively developed when he is 10 years old. According to web source most of the teens get cognitively developed between the age of 13 to 17 years. In this period they attain maturity that is they start getting the ability to make decisions based on the knowledge they attain. At this age, they also start building relations with friends and family. I prefer that the age of responsibility should be increased from 10 years, at this age a child is still not mentally matured of the act he or she is doing. An article was also published in the newspaper ‘The Guardian’ dated 5.12.2012, with headline as ‘Age of criminal responsibility must be to protect children rights’.
It was said that the age of criminal ...
... middle of paper ...
...nce and the Law, London Royal Society
13. Rediich A & Goodman S 2002 ‘Taking responsibility for an act not committed: the influence of age and suggestibility in law and human behavior 27(2)
14. All Party Parliamentary Group for Children (2010)
15. Barnado’s (2010) from Playground to Prison: the case of reviving the age of criminal responsibility, Illford:
Barnado’s and Centre for Social Justice (2012)
16. All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System (2012) keeping girls out of the penal system,
London: Howard League for Penal Reform
17. Sexual Offences Act, 2003, Section 74
18. R Allen, from Punishment to Problem – Solving; a new approach to children in trouble (Centre for Crime and Justice Studies: London 2006)
19. Crime and Disorder Act 1998: section 37
Humes reveals an in-depth view of the children’s life, their treatment within the system, how they think and feel, and all the factors that influence their fate upon the decision of the courts. In my opinion, the books aim is not attempting to justify the children for their negative actions, but more to inform others on exactly how the system works in these types of situations. What action should be taken with regards to juveniles committing crime? Perhaps rehabilitation or pursue justice and punish the young offenders. The book manages to answer these questions in multiple ways, and all the different factors that weigh in making it clear, proving that the juvenile justice system is not an easy topic, in any sense.
This paper will analyze the different theoretical issues pertaining to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin, and suggest a course of action for resolving these issues to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone cannot ever prevent all juvenile crime, respond perfectly to every situation or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern juvenile crime would necessitate far broader action, addressing underlying social structure inequalities that breed poverty and social disorganization.
Each day Americans make decisions that affect the outcomes of their lives. Some choices are easily made, while others require intense thought. The consequences of actions, nonetheless, are known from as early on as childhood. For example, a small child knows immediately that he or she can thrust their hand in a fire and feel the consequences. However, Mr. Raeburn states, “teenagers cannot be held fully responsible for their actions because all the wiring to allow adult decision making isn’t completed yet” (517). Still, teenagers can be held responsible for operating a vehicle, and be held accountable to obey traffic laws. These illustration...
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.
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.
juvenile justice” (Elrod & Ryder, 2011) is to detour juvenile crimes and not be so easy on
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
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 federal government of Canada fifteen years ago, in 1984, the Liberal party changed the Juvenile Delinquents Acts to the Youth Offenders Act to have a “More human approach to the rights of young people before the law”(Leschild and Jaffe, 8:1991). In the present such as Premier, Mike Harris, of Ontario wants the federal government of Canada to scrap the Young Offenders Act. In 1999, the same party that came up with the act is making majors changes to the act. This report will look at the young offenders act at the present time, look at why kids commit crime, what is being done to improve the act, what has the province done towards teenagers and also a look at the United Sates youth system.
Although more commonly seen is up until the age of seventeen. In the states of New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina the age the highest age would be fifteen. In the ten states of Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, Michigan Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Texas, and Wisconsin the highest age is 16. The upper age would be seventeen in the Columbia District and the remaining states. There are always exceptions with this as there are rules of how they can be under the age limit but depending on crime there is a chance that they could have to go to criminal
Taking a ‘soft’ approach to young offenders will only make them worse – it is better to ‘scare them straight’ so that they desist from further offending. Critically discuss this statement with reference to Justice and Welfare approaches to common types of juvenile crime.
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
The legal treatment for youth varies all over the world because developed countries base the juvenile laws in the constitution, whereas the developing countries legally treat the youths by customs in the society. Before democracy South Africa used to treat the youths by societal rules, today it complies with the country’s constitution and international laws. I am sharing South Africa efforts with the Child Justice Act (CJA) 75 of 2008 to improve juvenile justice policies and its similarities and discrepancies with the international community and the United States. Per Sloth-Nielsen and Gallinetti (2011) South Africa new justice system is a significant advance in children’s human rights. Because of the debate on human rights, especially children,
Adolescents today commit more serious crimes than they did before; as a result, requiring them to be tried and penalized as adults because of the nature of the crime, ferocity involved, and different categories of crimes. Now having to deal with the crimes being committed we cannot talk about this without first getting over a major problem, being age. This is the most discussed portion of any dispute when dealing with juveniles and crime. At what age does a child have the ability to commit a crime? Under the shared law, which all laws in the United States initiated, states that a child could not commit a crime if the defense was able to demonstrate an initial stage?