2b discussion cards Flashcards
1
Q
Youth crime and capitalism
A
- One perspective on early youth crime laws is that they were developed to address concerns
- About rising poverty and youth crime in urban areas
- Result of new urbanization: poor children on the streets & new crime committed by youth
- This creates a fear among upper classes that the root problem of crime lies in the children of the poor and working (or “dangerous”) class. (Marx | Conflict Theorists).
2
Q
Youth crime and “Child Savers”
A
- Another view of origin of youth crime laws is 19th-century North American social reformers were influential in creating a separate justice system for juveniles
- They believed that delinquency was the result of a bad social environment
- Children could be “saved” and therefore reformed through various methods
- Birth of reformatories
- Kelso and Scott
3
Q
Juvenile Delinquents Acts (1908)
A
- Originates with ideas of J.J. Kelso and W.L. Scott
- Child-saving: leads to creation of a separate system of justice
- Adopted a child welfare philosophy
4
Q
Juvenile Delinquents Acts (JDA)
A
- Parens Patriae: legal doctrine that gives state the right to act as “parent” or guardian of youth offender
- Parens patriae intended to serve “best interests” of child
- Forms basis of JDA Welfare-based juvenile justice: focus is on rehabilitation of the youth offender
5
Q
JDA: Key Components
A
- Extensive powers given to the courts
- Focus on reforming youth offender; parental role assigned to probation officers; to supervising the youth, help them navigate court system, communicate with courts on their behalf, and work with youth’s family to reintegrate into home, workplace, and school as good upstanding member of society.
- Sentences ranged from fines to sending child to industrial school or reformatory
- Probation was a central element to the JDA.
- Once labelled as delinquent, children remained under control of the state in some cases up to 21 years of age
Problems
- Age of delinquency was set by provinces and varied throughout the country
- JDA costly due to new bureaucracy and Implementation by provinces inconsistent
Criticisms of the JDA
- Child advocates: saw JDA as potentially abusive (rights of children and parents)
- Conservative critics: saw JDA as not tough enough on youth crime
- Police: saw problems with administration of JDA. JDA was too lenient, police expected to act as “parents” of youth offender.
- Children’s aid societies: problems in how to best accomplish goals of JDA
- Politicians: concern re: lack of lawyer representation, high lvl of discretionary powers of probation officers. Lack of right to trial
6
Q
Modifying the JDA
A
- 1960s: new calls for change to the JDA
- New focus in 1960s on rights
- UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child; Canada is a signatory on it.
- Canadian Bill of Rights created a new awareness of individual rights in the juvenile legal process
Other Criticisms
- Status offences: truancy, sexual promiscuity, loitering, vagrancy, incorrigibility. Acts criminal only due to age of offender (now against the law); truancy, loitering, vagrancy, and incorrigibility. Discriminatory by age
- Ineffectiveness of deterrence under the JDA
- Status offences were not criminal and yet offenders were being treated as equal to those who had committed criminal offences (discriminatory because only applied to children/youth).
- The JDA essentially labeled all youth as potentially criminal
- Other critics: inconsistencies in the application of law
- Judges could order the youth held for an undetermined period until the youth was reformed
- Abuse of discretionary power among social workers and other court-appointed officials
7
Q
JDA Reform / Replace
A
- Reform starts in 1965
- Various bills were introduced
- April 1984: Young Offenders Act (or YOA) came into effect
- Replaced the JDA. The nearly 20 years between reform process beginning and implementation of YOA involved focus on the concepts of accountability, responsibility, and rights.
8
Q
Principles of the YOA
A
- Removal of “status offences”; Truancy, incorrigibility, etc.
- Argued youth have limited accountability: different from adults
- Protection of society
- Young people are seen to have “special needs”
- Alternative measures: diversion from jail sentences; discretion in charging, corrections, and sentencing.
- Minimal interference: youth to be treated at every step with least possible interference
- Protection of society was paramount with the YOA
- Guidance, safety and security
- Increased focus on the rights of the accused
- Parental responsibility: parents no longer responsible for child’s offence
- The YOA stressed parental involvement in relation to the child’s processing through justice system
- Parental responsibility lead to inequalities in the youth justice system: Aboriginals could received harsher sentences due to poverty
9
Q
Young Offenders Act (model)
A
- The JDA is a child welfare model
- The YOA is a hybrid law in terms of its use of three models of justice:
- Justice model: focus is on the rule of law
- Modified-justice model: not a strict adherent to pure justice
- Crime-control model: retributive in approach to justice (“get tough”)
10
Q
Criticisms of the Young Offenders Act
A
- Criticism began soon after passing of YOA; expensive act with high costs of enforcing
- Some saw the law as too lenient, essentially a “slap on the wrist”
- Provinces had to pay the high costs of administering the YOA
- Media: fuelled public crit of YOA; “all they care about is rights of accused”
- Rights of the accused took precedence over protection of the public
11
Q
Government Reform of YOA
A
- The YOA underwent a number of amendments in 1986, 1991, and 1995
- These revisions moved YOA toward a crime-control model (get-tough)
- Critics were still unsatisfied, calling for the creation of a new law
12
Q
The YCJA (2003)
A
- the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) introduced as Bill C-7
- came into effect April 2003
- critics soon after argued that the YCJA needed amendments
Principles of the YCJA
- hybrid of several models of justice
- age range: 12-17 years
- uses a crime-control approach
- the term “juvenile” is replaced with “youth”
- Purpose of youth justice system: “the protection of the public through crime prevention, rehabilitation, and meaningful consequences”
- Restorative justice: repairing the harm done to victims and communities
- Reparation: making amends
- Reintegration: ensuring youth is successfully involved in her/his community after debt paid to society
- Diversion: from custody sentences; rehabilitation is preferred and child will get message, whereas custody may contribute to making it worse by increasing behavioural problems.
- Argument: net-widening; “are you really giving them break?” Research suggests that youth who accept would have been found innocent if it had gone to court but if child doesn’t adhere to diversionary requirement the full weight of the law comes down.
- Addressing “special needs” (addiction treatment, anger management).
13
Q
Ammendments to the YCJA
A
- a number of bills have been introduced to amend the YCJA
- Bill C-25: followed recommendations of Nunn Inquiry. proposed less onerous and added deterrence and denunciation to sentencing. Criticized for relying on principles of Teresa McVoi case.
- Bill C-4; “protecting public from violent young offenders”: “Sebastien’s Law”): more crime-control based amendments. Aimed at repeat violent offenders and sentencing them in proportion to offences, including increased use of adult sentences and publishing names of offenders.
- Bill C-10; “safe streets and communities act”; Conservatives win majority government and introduce new changes to YCJA; Very controversial. Massive omnibus bill dealing with adults and children, gave lots of power to correctional officers. Protection of public was primary goal. They wanted simplified pretrial detention guides, redefine serious offences to those punishable by 5 years in custody, expand definition of violent offence, add deference and denunciation to principles. It created more avenues for tougher sentencing and record keeping, thus changing the nature of the YCGA to a much more punitive act.
14
Q
YCJA Focus On Rights
A
- YCJA also addresses the rights of the accused
- Partly due to Canada’s ties to UN Convention on Rights of the Child
- YCJA both supports and rejects some articles of the UN Convention
- UN Convention shows some problems with member-nations adhering to international agreements
- UN found youth justice system in Canada to be particularly harsh/punitive. Specifically concerned with provision that allows for youth to be sentenced and imprisoned with adults in cases. Also in disagreement with publication of names of youth who have been sentenced as adults. Further the UN takes exception to YCJA no longer mentioning or removed the “best interests of child” (as JDA and the YOA did
15
Q
Cycle of Juvenile Justice
A
- Bernard argued that cycle is perpetual (neverending reform), especially when it comes to the Youth Justice Acts
- people never convinced crime is being adequately controlled, especially youth crime.
- calls are made for never-ending reform, with harsher treatments
- in practice, trend goes to leniency
- critics then call for reform to youth law
