Cc200 youth justice creating a juvenile justice system then and now
Download
1 / 44

CC200 Youth Justice Creating a Juvenile Justice System: Then and Now - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 197 Views
  • Uploaded on

CC200 Youth Justice Creating a Juvenile Justice System: Then and Now. Chapter Two. Introduction. We tend to link the juvenile justice system with understandings of crime prevention and crime control. However, the creators of the system had other objectives in mind.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' CC200 Youth Justice Creating a Juvenile Justice System: Then and Now' - zytka


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Cc200 youth justice creating a juvenile justice system then and now

CC200Youth JusticeCreating a Juvenile Justice System: Then and Now

Chapter Two


Introduction
Introduction

  • We tend to link the juvenile justice system with understandings of crime prevention and crime control.

  • However, the creators of the system had other objectives in mind.

  • According to some, the jjs was created in response to problems generated by the newly emerging capitalist system that undermined traditional family supports.



  • These group argued that delinquency was the end-result of bad environments and that the state should act like a parent to ‘save’ children from these environments.

  • This meant that the state should go so far as to remove children from their parent’s homes and institutionalize them.



Juvenile delinquents act
Juvenile Delinquents Act a desire to save children from harmful family influences while protecting them from the full force of criminal law and the negative influence of adult criminal offenders.

  • The Canadian juvenile justice system was officially created in 1908 through the passage of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

  • This legislation did not occur in isolation but was, in fact, the culmination of a number of pieces of legislation and welfare reforms.



  • It began as the King’s right to control property of orphaned heirs for the purpose of protection.

  • By the 18th century, parens patriae had expanded to include a ‘best interest’ principle as a means of actively promoting the best interests or well-being of a child or young person.


  • By the 19 orphaned heirs for the purpose of protection.th century, the doctrine had expanded beyond the monarch to the state and to children without property who were orphaned or neglected by parents or guardians.

  • This doctrine formed the foundation of the new Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908.


  • The JDA defined delinquency as the violation by persons under the age of 16 (this age varied by province) of any federal, provincial, or municipal law for which a fine or imprisonment was the penalty, or the commission of any other act that would make a young person liable to be committed to an industrial school or reformatory.


  • The JDA gave the courts considerable powers. under the age of 16 (this age varied by province) of any federal, provincial, or municipal law for which a fine or imprisonment was the penalty, or the commission of any other act that would make a young person liable to be committed to an industrial school or reformatory.

  • Cases were to be handled summarily.

  • If an offence was indictable, it was up to the court to decide if the youth would be tried in an adult court.

  • Indictable offence – CCC refers to offences that are of a serious nature; the minimum sentence is always two years or more.


  • More like hearings than trials, juvenile cases were conducted privately and notices of delinquency hearings were sent to parents or guardians.

  • Separate detention and jail facilities were mandated for delinquents.

  • The JDA also allowed for a wide range of dispositions (sentences).



  • The JDA required probation officers to conduct investigations for the court, to assist and direct the court, and to represent the interests of the child in court.

  • The probation officer was also responsible for supervising children sentenced to a period of probation.





Opposition to the jda
Opposition to the JDA time the first court was set up (Manitoba in1909) and the last (Northwest Territories in 1979)

  • The JDA faced opposition.

  • Those opposing the act did so on either the grounds that it was not punitive enough or out of concern about potential abuses to the rights of children and parents.

  • Victorian reformers ignored the opposition.


  • Most were not overly concerned with protecting the rights of children because they were convinced they were acting in the best interests of the child and were protecting children.

  • They, therefore, believed that the decisions and actions of anyone working in the justice system would also be focused on the best interests of the child.



Modifying the juvenile justice system
Modifying the Juvenile Justice System meeting the needs of children and on ‘helping’ rather than punishing with the objective to treat and rehabilitate.

  • Serious challenges to the JDA began to emerge in the 1960s as a result of a growing international and national rights discourse.

  • A major source of concern directed at the JDA was in regard to status offences.



  • The opposite effect was considered equally problematic by other critics who argued that young people who were not breaking criminal laws were being punished in the same manner as those who did.

  • They were also concerned that status offenders were being negatively affected by close associations with chronic offenders in institutions.


  • Another concern was the lack of set terms of sentences. other critics who argued that young people who were not breaking criminal laws were being punished in the same manner as those who did.

  • Incarceration lasted as long as it took for a young person to be ‘reformed’ or rehabilitated.

  • While this served the welfare interests it did not satisfy those who were concerned with matters of due process.



  • And treatment provisions were not consistent from one jurisdiction to another.

  • In addition, concerns were raised about the role of social workers in the system and the amount of discretionary power they were able to exercise.

  • Since social workers were not part of the juvenile justice system, they were not accountable to the courts for their decisions.


  • On the other side, there was the ever-present argument that the Juvenile Delinquents Act failed to provide public protection from the criminal behavior of children and youth.

  • Reform attempts of the act began in 1965 and by 1977 a new Young Offenders Act had been drafted.

  • In April of 1984 the Juvenile Delinquents Act was formally replaced by the Young Offenders Act.


Principles of juvenile justice under the yoa
Principles of Juvenile Justice under the YOA the Juvenile Delinquents Act failed to provide public protection from the criminal behavior of children and youth.

  • The YOA created a very different juvenile justice system from the JDA.

  • The JDA referred to delinquents as ‘misdirected and misguided’ children in need of ‘aid, encouragement, help, and assistance’ the YOA referred to young people as persons in a ‘state of dependency’ how have ‘special needs and require guidance and assistance, as well as supervision, discipline, and control’.



Accountability
Accountability system that provided emphasis on youth responsibility,

  • A principle of juvenile justice was created that young people who commit criminal offences would have to assume responsibility for their behavior.

  • However, the YOA recognized that young people have limited accountability compared to adults.


Protection of society
Protection of Society system that provided emphasis on youth responsibility,

  • The protection of society was included in the original act and was revisited in the 1995 amendment.

  • This amendment underscored its importance as a guiding principle in juvenile justice by stating that it is a primary objective of the criminal law.


Special needs
Special Needs system that provided emphasis on youth responsibility,

  • Section 3(1)(c)(C.1) outlined more specifically the rationale for a youth justice system.

  • Because of their immaturity and dependency relative to adults, young people are said to have ‘special needs’.

  • The term ‘special needs’ is not defined in legislation and, based on case law, seems to be interpreted as the psychological and social needs of the child.



Alternative measures
Alternative Measures parents or guardians who are willing and able to provide for the child’s psychological and physiological needs.

  • Section 3(1)(d) expressed the principle of diversion: that where the protection of society is not compromised, measures other than formal court processing, with its potentially negative effects, should be considered.

  • In most provinces only first time offenders and young persons guilty of minor offences were to be processed through alternative measures.


Rights of young persons
Rights of Young Persons parents or guardians who are willing and able to provide for the child’s psychological and physiological needs.

  • It is in s.3(1)(e) and (g) that one finds the major difference between the YOA and the JDA.

  • In addition to rights and freedoms guaranteed through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights, the YOA established that young people would have special guarantees.


  • These special guarantees included the right to legal representation and the right to be informed as to their rights and freedoms under the act.

  • Some rules pertained to statements made to ‘persons of authority’ and to the admissibility of statements made to these people.

  • Interesting to note that parents were not considered ‘persons of authority’ and so statements made to them in confidence by their children were admissible in court.


Minimal interference with freedom
Minimal Interference with Freedom representation and the right to be informed as to their rights and freedoms under the act.

  • Section 3(1)(f) applied to every aspect of youth justice and affected every young offender except where there were concerns regarding the protection of society.

  • This principle encouraged the use of alternative measures, but also encouraged police to divert youth from the system altogether.



Parental responsibility
Parental Responsibility representation and the right to be informed as to their rights and freedoms under the act.

  • Section 3(1)(h) marked another significant difference from the JDA.

  • The YOA did not consider parental responsibility but instead addressed parental involvement with youth and the justice proceedings.



Modifications to the yoa
Modifications to the YOA child’s arrest or of youth court proceedings and they could be ordered to attend court.

  • Most resistance to the YOA emerged after its enactment.

  • The debate over the YOA was reminiscent of the debates provoked by the creation of the juvenile justice system 100 years earlier.

  • Groups expressed concerns over the rights of children and the differences in the implementation of principles found within the act.


  • Other groups argued that the act was not punitive enough. child’s arrest or of youth court proceedings and they could be ordered to attend court.

  • This resulted in three major sets of revisions to the act, all of which moved the justice system away from the welfare model and towards a crime control model.

  • Bill C-37 was an amendment of note and came into force on December 1, 1995.


  • The major changes to the YOA under this amendment included: child’s arrest or of youth court proceedings and they could be ordered to attend court.

  • Sentences for ten years for youth convicted of first-degree murder or seven years for second-degree murder.

  • Automatic transfer to adult court for 16 and 17 year olds charged with serious “personal injury” offences unless able to satisfy a judge that the two objectives – public protection and rehabilitation – could be achieved better through the youth court.



ad