What is the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)? The YCJA was created in 2003 in Canada’s Parliament by the Liberal Party of Canada and has been effective since April 1, 2003. This system is separate from the Criminal Code of Canada, and was created to treat young offenders differently compared to adult offenders since younger people think and act differently compared to adults. This act deals with youth aged 12 to 17 who have gotten into trouble with the law. It allows for youth aged 14 to 17 to receive adult sentences, if necessary. Youth receive no permanent criminal record, unless it is an adult sentence or if they are on the run. Under the YCJA, the media cannot release any details about the young offender. The YCJA is an effective law because it helps to protect the …show more content…
Finally, it looks at the circumstances of the youth, such as the home they are living in, and any mental or psychological disorders, or illnesses, they may have. This policy is used for a myriad of cases. An example of that is the Medicine Hat case. A young 12 year old girl, known as J.R under the YCJA, became Canada’s youngest multiple killer. In April, 2003, J.R helped her then 23 year old boyfriend, Jeremy Steinke, kill her entire family which included her mother, father and brother. She had killed them because they were trying to stop her relationship with Steinke. She received a moderately new sentencing option which was and Intensive Custody and Supervision order or IRCS. J.R was given this because this program is available for, “serious, violent offenders, who may have a mental or psychological disorder or an emotional disturbance,” according to the federal Department of Justice, and she was seen as that. She had been put into a psychiatric hospital for four years of her full ten year sentence, which is the longest sentence a youth who committed a crime can
Canada has many rules in place for all the crimes that happens throughout the country. However, people of different ages are treated differently. This is because of the YCJA, which gives youth who commit crime, under the age of eighteen, certain rights that adult criminals don’t get. This is a very debated and important topic because this act gives certain advantages to youth criminals because of their age and some people don’t think that this is fair.
To many Americans today, the country is a hostage-but not from oversea terrorism as one might expect to think. No today, we live in fear from our own children; and these are the same young people who we are entrusting the future of this great country with. According to the Department of Justice report released in November, thirty-eight percent of those arrested for weapons offenses in 1995 were under the age of eighteen (Curriden). In the same report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that in 1995, 3 out of every 100 eighteen-year-olds were arrested for weapons offenses. A rate three times higher than for males twenty-five to twenty-nine and five times higher than for males thirty to thirty-four (Curriden).
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
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
The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.
We believe that YCJA is fair. The law is fair and equitable in the light of fact that some of the adolescent who have a crime might not know what they are doing but will get a fair sentence and punishment. Having these laws will help the teenagers to not do the same crime again because they may need to pay restitution or do a community service. As years pass by, we are seeing that there fewer cases of youth breaking laws and they are given a second chance to reintegrate. In this way, the youth is given a chance to learn from his/her previous mistakes. The YCJA also provides fair consequences and fair
Juveniles at CCJTDC are also not given the opportunity to exercise the third central human capability. It is evident they do not have the ability to move freely from place to place, and as mentioned before, are not secure against violent assault, including but not limited to sexual assault. One can argue that the general public is not guaranteed safety, and question why deviant misbehaved children should be protected from it. Although it is true children that have violated the law should not be rewarded, it is troubling for this to occur in a government run center. America is not a nation that supports abusive government authoritative figures over its people. Even given the circumstances, human dignity must still be maintained. The promotion
Sentencing youth offenders has a different criterion then sentencing an adult as the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) has a set of principles and guidelines, which judges must follow. Sentencing is a process where a youth is either found guilty or has pleaded guilty and a judge will decide on an appropriate consequence (Justice Education Society, 2017). The process ensures youth are held accountable for their actions, focusing on a rehabilitative, or reintegrated approach. There are many ways a youth offender can be sentenced. Section 42(2) of the YCJA defines and explains sentencing options for youth offenders.
In Canada when a young person gets in trouble with the law, the punishment given will be in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was created in 2003. The main objective of this legislation is to hold youth accountable for their actions through the promotion of “rehabilitation” and “reintegration” (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002, S.3a(ii)). Within the Canadian court system, there is a youth court for individuals who get in trouble with the law while they are still under the age of 18 years. In Calgary, Alberta the youth courtrooms are located in the Calgary Courts Center building, which is located at 601 5th Street SW. I attended youth court on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 and Monday, October 31th. This paper will shed light on the atmosphere of the youth courtroom, analyze how the criminal justice professionals are acting within the courtroom, and discuss certain cases that went through the youth courts.
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
The overwhelming majority of juveniles are involved in impulsive or risky, even delinquent behaviors during their teenage years. However, the majority go on to become very productive citizens who do not commit crimes. In order for this to continue the government established the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which gives young offenders a chance to better themselves, and. By doing so, the YCJA helps teach youth that their actions are unacceptable and the punishments imposed are lesser then an adult. Through the analysis of their unacceptable actions, lesser punishments and a better future, it is clear that YCJA is highly effective at giving youth a better chance in society.
The YCJA was created with two main goals in mind the first being “For the relatively small number of youth found guilty of the most serious violent offences, the Act facilitates the process for imposing a more severe, adult sentence. [The second is] for the vast majority of young offenders who commit less serious offences, the YCJA is intended to reduce Canada's reliance on the use of courts
Adult offenders wouldn't like the YCJA because they might feel it's unfair to them because they get reduced sentences and depending on the crime, don't even have to go to jail, but youth’s brains are not fully developed yet and they may have somebody influencing them or forcing them to do it, or are having problems at home or are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Youth offenders like the YCJA because it helps them get on the right track and they are often not given jail time and are instead required to do community service or see a
All of these are decided in the court, by the judge. However, the judge can also change the consequences of Trevor depending on his attitude. If Trevor were to act against the court and try to protest, the judge can extend or strengthen his punishment. His punishments may also include a criminal record. If Trevor were charged under the YCJA, the judge will likely decide not to give him a criminal record, because a youth is not fully developed, and therefore cannot hold the same responsibility as an adult offender.
This paper will describe my understanding of the text and of the lectures provided in the class. Unlike most classes, where I understood only my view of the text, this class was geared so each student would understand each other’s view. 3 An organization is a collective that has some boundary and internal structure that engages in activities related to some complex set of goals. Members of organizations attempt to meet their psychological, ego and emotional needs within the organization. Criminal justice organizations are particularly unique compared to other public or private sector organizations because of the governmental granted authority. Management within these organizations can be defined as the process by