The issue of youth justice is an important one, and especially in Canada. This is because youth in Canada commit a proportionately high percentage of the crime in our society. Youth in Canada (aged 12-18) account for 10 percent of the population, but are responsible for 20 percent of violent crime. Youths are also responsible for a high percentage of property crime – particularly theft. (Fleming et al., 2008: 145-146). This increased youth crime is a trend that has been moving in the wrong direction over the years, and has caused Canadians and the government to revaluate their policy and manner of dealing with youth justice. Since the inception of the Juvenile Delinquents Act in 1908, Canada has always treated its youth differently in their justice system. However, this is a system that, over the last century, has experienced many changes, both structurally and philosophically. There have been many shifts in the way that Canadians deal with young offenders, and the principles that underlay the system.
[...] It changes once again, the philosophy behind youth justice in Canada. It introduces the idea of extrajudicial measures. These are ways of dealing with offences that do not involve the justice system, an example can be the community coming together and agreeing on an appropriate punishment (the court needs to agree as well). Whenever these measures are sufficient to hold the young offender accountable to his actions, the YCJA tries to use it as an alternative method of punishment. It encourages outsiders, like the family and community to play a role in shaping these extrajudicial measures. [...]
[...] Despite the apparent benefits of the YCJA, there are still those who believe it is the wrong way to approach youth justice, and they are calling for an overhaul of the Act, one that will make more use of custodial sentencing and will overall be harsher for those youths who offend. One particular proponent of revamping the YCJA is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper and his Conservative caucus have pledged that he will try and eliminate the YCJA and replace it with a version that is tougher on the young people that commit these crimes. [...]
[...] This essay will argue that the current principles of sentencing are the best suited for Canada, and Harper's desire to strengthen them would be a negative thing for Canada, and its (youth) justice system. To begin, we will first seek to understand the context of these three different legislations. It started with the introduction of the JDA in 1908. This first statute defined “childhood as being between 7-16 years old, and it would be implemented with an interpretive perspective looking out for the best interests of the child. [...]
[...] This makes judges think about how they are using custodial sentences, and it ensures that they are only used as a means of last resort in our justice system. (Doob & Cesaroni, 2004: 226). The sentencing provisions of the YCJA are different than that of the Criminal Code in two ways. Firstly, the provisions of the YCJA have a clear intent, and it is clearly an objective to limit the use of custodial sentences. It provides a checklist that must be satisfied for judges to send offenders into custody, and it requires the judges to justify this decision. [...]
[...] Harper's commitment to changing the way in which youth justice is administered in Canada is worrisome, as it presents a shift away from the progressive sentencing principles that are enshrined in the YCJA. It is also problematic for places like Quebec which have long-standing traditions of a more lenient approach to youth justice. Harper's proposed approach is, and will continue to come as odds with those who favour more lenient measures for youth that find themselves on the wrong side of the law. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
