Youth and Justice
Introduction
Changes in public opinion, as well as in criminal justice legislation, have begun to recognize and reflect the unique circumstances at play in the lives of youth who commit crime. That is, it has become widely recognized that the justice system cannot treat youth offenders with the same response that adult offenders are treated with. Minaker and Hogeveen (2009) support this claim and state that youth require “a qualitatively different response” (p. 249). Two examples that reflect this sentiment are: the notion that youth are biologically and psychologically underdeveloped when compared with adults, and that youth possess a unique combination of risk and need that exacerbates their vulnerability as youth.
…show more content…
This generalized approach to crime used a classical form of legal governance, which was primarily concerned with determining guilt or innocence (Minaker & Hogeveen, 2009, p. 45). Legally for a crime to have occurred two fundamental conditions must be met: actus reus (the violation of a criminal statute), and mens rea (the individual who violated the law has to possess the mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of their conduct) (Minaker & Hogeveen, 2009, p. 45). Mental capacity is especially relevant to any discussion of youth and justice. Youth are within the development process. That is, youth are biologically and psychologically progressing towards becoming adults. Moreover, the distinction between youth and adult mental capacity is important for developing appropriate responses to youth …show more content…
Catherine Elliott (2011) argues that both the abolishment of doli incapax and the age of criminal responsibility in England being ten and over, fails to consider that youth outside these parameters still have a diminished mental capacity and lack the freedom to choose how they behave (p. 289). The argument here is that childhood and development does not end at the age of ten, and that the justice system must recognize this. Furthermore, a youth that is eleven years old should not face the same weight of the justice system as a fully developed adult. The government of the United Kingdom justified “abolishing the defense of doli incapax on the basis that [it] would send a clear signal that in general children ten and over should be held accountable for their own actions” (Elliott, 2011, p. 292). Holding youth accountable means to have them take responsibility for their behaviours (Minaker & Hogeveen, 2009, p. 102). The question then becomes, how do we hold youth accountable while also recognizing their diminished capacity and development? Turning to a biological explanation Elliott (2011) states that factors, such as the frontal lobes of the brain, play an important role in the development of self-control and impulsivity (p. 294). The brain of a youth is still developing and this impacts their behaviour. “Considerable evidence supports the conclusion that children and adolescents are less capable decision makers than adults in ways
Thus, the shifting perceptions of the justice system has transformed what it means to be a child and an adult due to their pervasive, and punitive approaches to crime and delinquency. Although adolescents today enjoy many new freedoms and greater time to experiment, those that don’t conform to “normative behaviors” and engage in socially constructed definitions of delinquency, often end up under the firm hands of the juvenile justice system. Despite the creation of this phase in an adolescent’s life, the injustices within the adult justice system have breached into the juvenile system, thus, blurring the lines of what it means to be an adolescent in modern times. Thereby, the adolescent stage is constantly being manipulated to conform and match the social construction of crime and delinquency, and the rise in the practice of trying juveniles as adults within the court system and mandating life sentences is evidence of this
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
What is important to understand in terms of the difference between the juvenile and adult system is that there is a level of dependency that is created between the two and the juvenile system focuses on how to help rather than in prison individuals at such a young age. However, it usually depends on the type of crimes that have been committed and what those crimes mean for the families and how they impact the greater society. The adult system distinguishes between dependence and delinquency mainly because there is a psychological transition that occurs with juveniles that is not always a predictor of a cyclical life of crime. However, if an adult is committed to the justice system, there can be a dependency of delinquency and a cycle of crime that is more likely to be sustained at that age and level of cognitive ability than in comparison to a juvenile. The reasoning behind this is important is that it is focused on maintaining a level of attention to the needs and capacity abilities of individuals living and working in different types of societies (Zinn et al., 2017).
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.
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
Harassment, reckless endangerment, and burglary are all juvenile offenses. These juvenile offenses almost always stay on the juvenile’s criminal record, and the offenses displayed on a juvenile’s criminal record may cause employers, educators, and other authority figures to think less of the juvenile offender. As a viewer can see, this one mistake or lapse in judgment can ruin the juvenile offenders chance to further their success in life. For example, juvenile offenders may not obtain the dream job that they have always wanted, get into the college that they have always wanted to, or be eligible for a scholarship whether athletic or academic. However, there is a loophole in the juvenile justice system called teen courts. Teen courts give first-time offenders and some re-offenders a second chance because the offense (s) do not go on their criminal record, and their peers get to decide what sanctions the juvenile offender receives or performs. The big question that I am going to discuss throughout this essay is do juvenile offenders who appear before teen courts recidivate?
Federal standards define any young offender under the age of eighteen who commits a crime is define as a juvenile delinquent. And the important differences between adults and young people, that a one-size fits all method is not desirable and will not make the situation better. Our justice system also accomplishes an important symbolic function by establishing principles of behavior. It formally defines the right and wrong for citizens and frees them from the responsibility of taking vengeance, thus avoiding the escalation of feuds within communities. The system protects the rights of free citizens by honoring the belief that individual freedom should not be denied without good cause.
As minors commit violent crimes without being held accountable, they can grow up to be real criminals and they can be very dangerous. Without a solid foundation of what is right and wrong, these minors will grow up believing that their actions are the norm. For this reason, minors need to be held accountable. They need to be taught that they cannot get away with their crimes. In 2007, courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled an estimated 1.7 million delinquency cases. Delinquency cases include vandalism, shoplifting, robbery, and murder. These are just some of the crimes minors can commit. This was up by forty-four percent from 1985. If a minor grows up believing that crime is acceptable, they will repeat the pattern. Without interrupting the pattern and making them accountable, these minors will always have a twisted sense of right and wrong. A sense of what is right and wrong is important and can be learned at any age. Minors learn very young, what...
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. Juveniles are not mature enough or developed psychologically, and, therefore, do not consider the consequences of their actions. In the article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” by Thompson, the writer argues that juveniles are not adults. Their brains develop at different stages and they learn skills that they need to learn at a certain time.
As a society we often find it difficult to swallow the fact that children are capable of engaging in and committing crimes. The thought of a child, a being that represents innocence, would perform an act that deviates to social order shocks and confuses society. The questions of, how could you do that? What were you thinking? Which, then leads to statements like, “We did not raise that way! ” or “You know better than that!” when trying to comprehend the concept of the unacceptable actions of juveniles. Suicides, runaways, and later life offending seem to have a common link of juvenile delinquency. Children deviating from societal norms can affect the future of society because offending. Juvenile offending can be the result of a plethora of culprits and perhaps, as a society we can to come to terms with there not being one exclusive answer to explain why juveniles deviate from social norms.