Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Youth criminal justice act
Youth criminal justice act
Youth criminal justice act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Reports say that Truscott had been interrogated for nearly 7 hours. ...
... middle of paper ...
... Canada if the court followed through with the decision. For that reason, many of the focuses above were changed after cases like these.
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.
Christine Jessop was a nine year old girl who after bring dropped off by the school bus at her home in Queensville, decided to ride her bike to the park nearby to meet with her friends. After stopping to buy some gum at the local store, she was last seen walking her bike up her driveway by her friend Kim Warren. She did not keep her appointment with her friend at the park, and would never be seen alive again (Anderson & Anderson, 2009). This small town instantly became involved in the search for the missing girl, but with very little evidence to go on time passed, and hope began to diminish for the safe return home of Jessop. On New Year’s Eve 1984, eighty-nine days after Jessop went missing, her body was found badly decomposed in a bush by Fred Patterson fifty-five kilometers from Queensville. An autopsy would later revival that she was raped and mutilated (Anderson & Anderson, 2009). The police still did not have a suspect in the case nor did they have any leads, but now that her body was found the police and the small town were the topic of media, increasing pressure on the police to figure out what had happened to this little girl.
Though his killings occurred over thirty years ago Clifford Olson is still knows as one of Canada’s most notorious serial killers. Active through the years 1980-1980 he was responsible for eleven gruesome murders in that short span of time. The shocking nature of his crimes ensured nobody would forget his notorious deeds. To build on that, Olson is loathed because he extorted authorities into paying $100,000 for the locations of his victims’ remains, an agreement that haunted the survivors of Olson’s crimes, and ruined the careers of the officials who buckled under Olson’s outrageous demands. Furthermore, his crime spree led Neighbourhoods that once claimed to be “so safe you could leave your door open” to secure their doors; hitchhikers were seldom found on highways, and telephone poles were covered with posters warning that nearly a dozen adolescents were missing and a killer was on the loose. Had he not been apprehended by the authorities on August 12th, 1981 his spree of brutal slayings may have continued for much longer, as he showed no remorse for his ruthless crimes.
Q1 THE COURT/S IN WHICH THE CASE WAS HEARD (OUTLINE THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
David Milgaard’s story is one of the most striking and well know representation of wrongful conviction as it happened right here in Saskatoon. Even further than that his case has been called “one of the most famous examples of wrongful conviction in Canada” (CBC News, 2011). In January of 1970, 17-year-old ...
On June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper was raped and murder, her remains found two days later, near Clinton, Ontario. 8 In September 1959, Steven Truscott was convicted for all crimes committed against Harper. Truscott was only 14 at the time and was initially supposed to be a death row inmate, with the sentence later reduced to life in prison. This is important, because 48 years later in 2007, he was exonerated of all charges. This case shed light on the problems of the criminal justice system, as the conviction of Steven Truscott was a miscarriage of justice brought upon by police tunnel vision and suppression of evidence.
felt by many that the change needed in the area of delinquency within the First
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 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
The analyst analyses the process of development of the attitude and social stigma attached to youth and then makes reverse action for delinking youth with demonization. When youth is demonized in terms of crime they tend to align themselves with one stereotype of social values and move away from other but more necessary social values (Goldson and Muncie, 2009). Moreover, the highlighting of youth in mass media also makes these youth confined to their negative roles as mass media makes these criminals more important and psychologically they tend to attract the immediate attention they receive. The attention may be for the wrong reasons but the criminals interpret it as different and consider it as fame and glory. The policy analyst needs to identify the political motivation behind demonizing youth into criminals and attend to the specific belief to address the rise of such illegitimate magnification. The juvenile system of care and welfare has been taking new forms and gets demanded to be renewed as the old efforts have not been able to curb the recurrence of juvenile and youth crimes (Musto, 2002), but has in fact segregated the rich and poor even terms of equal treatment. These factors of wilful and policy motivated practices of segregation further leads the
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
Steven Truscott, age 14, was sentenced to the death penalty for a schoolmate’s murder, providing little to no evidence then, and still 48 years later. In 1959 Truscott was known and referred to as Canada’s youngest death-row inmate following a short 15-day trial contributing no substantial evidence against him. The evidence that was used to convict Truscott was the forensic evidence given by John Penista, which was later on proven incorrect. Many witnesses came out on what happened the night of Lynn Harpers death but none of these testimonies were included in the original police report.
As noted by Allen (2016), measures that are implemented outside the courtrooms, especially in a formal procedure, may lead to the provision of accurate as well as timely considerations for youth crime. As such, Canada is keen in the reinforcement of these regulations, as they determine both short and long-term judicial solutions. Most importantly, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada plays a major role in the implementation of extrajudicial measures as they may affirm to the occurrence of future issues. According to the Government of Canada (2015a), this calls for an attempt to channel out or divert such offenders from the mainstream justice system to a lesser formal way of dealing with the offenses. This paper attempts to investigate the appropriateness of the extrajudicial measures in Canada, and the reason behind why we established these provisions of the YCJA. It also illustrates an example of a Canadian case, which questions the extrajudicial measures. This discussion canvasses the main argument as for or against the extrajudicial measures in Canada through the adoption of recommendations to the Canadian Government about the proper situations in which such processes should be used.
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).
Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capitol crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes. Many people claim that the child did not know any better, or that he was brought up with the conception that this behavior is acceptable. Although there is some truth to these allegations, the reality of this social issue is far more complex. Therefore we ask the question, "Should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults?"
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.