Youth Court Case Study

In this report, the President of Queensland’s Children’s Court, Michael Shanahan, provides an overview of juvenile justice in the period 2013-14. This includes a summary of the latest trends, which suggests a decrease in the number of youth offenders. Shanahan, a stakeholder in this issue, raises the idea that new amendments to the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) creates a more punitive approach to sentencing, which can cause recidivism. While the first part of the report is not entirely objective, the reliability of the resource is restored after Shanahan’s overview with the many tables, statistics and graphs available to peruse. Of the many Children’s Court annual reports available to the public, this report is the most recent and contains

On 06/12/2016, at approximately 0029 hours, while on an Off Duty detail at Airport Lanes Bowling, located at 190 E Airport Blvd, Sanford. I attempted to make contact with an black male juvenile, who later became known to me as Marcees Kilpatrick (arrestee) to ask him to leave the property for causing a disturbance.

The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.

The relevant legislation that has been implemented, (Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987), has addressed issues that young people face. However, rights for young people still need to be addressed. Doli Incapax, The Children’s Court and Legal are measures taken to protect young offenders in regards to the criminal justice system. Ensuring that the child’s rights are protected there have been legislations passed to guarantee the enforceability of this alternative methods. Young people are treated differently to adults in the criminal justice system for three major reasons. They are; they prevent children and young people from being exploited, protect them from making uniformed decisions and protect others from being disadvantaged by dealing with a person that is a

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

onathan Romero April 18, 2017 Juveniles should be tried as an adult in the court of law at the age of 18 because he or she has full reasoning skills and experience due to brain development, and life experience of their childhood life. Mike Tikkanen explains, "More than 200,000 individuals under the age of 18 are prosecuted in criminal court each year. " These youths can be as young as 17, without a full understanding of what is happening. The Judges and the jury come with the hard decision of saying whether the outcome is a penalty as an adult or a juvenile institution. This is wrong within the court system to be doing this, since sometimes the person is mentally handicapped, and the way someone is being tried should be changed very soon.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is the law that helps govern youth offenders in Canada, which has been created to introduce a overall fair and equitable method to deal with youth criminal offenders but could use further improvements. This act applies to youth between the ages of 12 and 17 and who have taken an offensive action against the law. Over the century there have been 3 youth justice statutes; the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908-1984), the Young Offenders Act (YOA) (1984-2003), and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) (2003-present). Significant changes were made to the act to make it much more fair and straight to the point. Changes such as the useage of courts in non-serious cases, fairness in sentencing, and lack of effective interrogation.

YCJA Essay by Salmaan Malik 9-1 The Youth Criminal Justice Act first came into effect on April 1, 2003. It was an act that was initiated to help deal with youth criminals that were above the age of 12 but under 18. And one of the main focuses of the YCJA was to provide meaningful consequences and then reintegrate the youth back into society. However since it was first introduced, the YCJA has raised many questions surrounding it with a major one being: Is the YCJA fair and equitable to youth?

The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), established on April 1st, 2003, is an independent piece of legislation within the justice system set aside for youth aged 12-17 who have committed a crime. There are several aspects that differ the current legislation from the past legislation, the Youth Offenders Act (YOA). So to what extent is the justice system fair and equitable to the youth? For the following reasons, I am drawn to the the belief that the YCJA is fair and equitable. Firstly, the YCJA has appointed a relevant age range for this statute.

Juvenile delinquents, individuals who are under 18 and have committed a crime, have been sentenced in a variety of procedures throughout the years. This may occur for various crimes such as theft, sexual assaults, etc. Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), a part of Canadian Legislation, determines the process of prosecution for youths under the Canadian Criminal Justice system. This has assisted several young adults reintegrate into society. It contains a set of definitive purposes and principles to aid judges in deciding sentences that are appropriate for youth. Prior to the YCJA, the Youth Justice Legislation was greatly influenced by two major acts: Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA) and Young Offenders Act (YOA). JDA, established in 1908, was recognized as an unjust act because judges were authorized to declare a sentence based on their opinion, not the law. Similarly, YOA (1984) provided unsuccessful sentences that consisted of inconsistent and vague principles. In 2003, the Youth Criminal Justice Act was introduced to generate equilibrium intervening the juridical framework of YOA and the social needs approach underlying the JDA. However, great controversy has been held against the act due to several individuals who presume it holds no purpose. Many infer that it is unjust to not be able to refer to the youth’s criminal record and to have an age boundary, although numerous statistics and criminal rate changes have disproved this. The Youth Criminal Justice Act has been

The manner in which the justice system deals with the young people who break the law has been changing. In 1997, the Young Offenders Act was introduced by the NSW government. The Young Offenders Act sates that young people who commit offences are given cautions, warnings or attend youth justice conferences with the victims of their crimes instead of going to court.

Young people represent the future of society. Consequently, they deserve respect and support while they develop in order to maintain a fair and just society. Therefore, it is the juvenile justice system’s responsibility to establish institutions and legislation to protect the important role that young people play in society. The system should also be driven by welfare and justice concerns as young people have special needs in regards to their age, and their physical, emotional and social development. It is essential that these welfare and justice concerns are addressed effectively by the system in order for young people to flourish. This essay will firstly assess the NSW juvenile justice system in regards to its treatment of young offenders in detention, in conjunction with its obligations under domestic and international law. Additionally, this essay will analyse evidence of welfare and justice concerns for youth offenders in detention in NSW. And furthermore, this essay will analyse the implications of youth detention on young offender’s and society. And ultimately argue that the NSW contemporary juvenile justice system is not driven by welfare and justice concerns. Given the fact that NSW has the highest rate of youth detention in Australia, and that there is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that youth detention carries detrimental physical and psychological consequences. Furthermore, the NSW juvenile justice system is not upholding the fact that young people

Differences between juvenile cases that are petitioned and those that aren’t are based upon the type of accusation/crime the juvenile is facing. If prosecutor decides to proceed with the juvenile's case informally, without petitioning the case, usually the minor must appear to a probation officer or judge. Although no formal charge is entered against the child, he or she usually will have to attend counseling or after-school classes repay damages done, pay a fine, community service work, or is sent into probation. If the child appears to be a victim of abuse, the juvenile court judge may remove the minor from parental custody. Cases that are preceded Formally/Petitioned Cases the prosecutor will decide to proceed formally, he will file a petition

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.

In the current society today, it is very common for young people to take part in criminal activities. However, the role of the Juvenile system is to make sure they are convicted as a ‘young offenders’ where courts will looks to provide them with the most appropriate sentencing for young people (applies for young people under the age of 18). This is due to young people lack maturity hence their thinking process differ from adults, as a result, they are more likely to commit in risky and anti social behaviors influenced by their peers (Aic.gov.au, 2015). In Australia, both welfare and justice model is used in the criminal justice system where the welfare model argues for the need for rehabilitation for young offenders whereas, the justice model adopts the concept that it’s within the young offender’s choice to commit crime. The models above is what shapes the juvenile systems where in the past 10 years many alterations has been made by key players such as the police, court and government/the state in order to protect youth offenders from harsh punishments and to implement the idea of a law conformity society. To further improve the Juvenile Justice the key players also looked into its major weakness which is the over representation of Indigenous youth and to develop strategist to overcome this predominant issue.