Since 1900, Canada has experienced major changes its criminal justice system. The youth criminal justice Act (YCJA) enacted in 2002, is essentially focused on promoting the principles of proportionality that were missing in the previous policies. In the previous years, youths were accorded lenient penalties which did not serve to deter them from recidivism. With the heightening rates of crimes among the youth, there was a need to make the rules stricter to enhance proper management of behavior. Also, considering that the previous legislative regimes had failed, it was time to try something new. In 1908 the Juvenile Delinquents Act was enacted, but it failed to manage criminal acts perpetrated by youths. This failure compelled the Canadian government to introduce Young Offenders Act in 1984, but it was too lenient in penalizing youths. However, the consequential enactment of YCJA introduced more stringent rules that served to control the increasing crimes. With this knowledge, the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act is tough on young offenders because, it is based on adulteration principles, violates UN child rights and has poor risk management strategies.
To begin with, the Canadian YCJA policy is tough on youth crimes since it is based on adulteration principles. In this law, penalization of crimes is based on the seriousness of the offense and not the age limits. With this concern, youths are not spared from harsh sentences since they are treated equally to their adult counterparts. However, this policy was primarily implemented to deter youths from perpetrating unacceptable behavior in society. For example, section three of the YCJA stipulates that the principal role of the policy is to offer protection to the public. Furthermore, sections four and five provide strict guidelines regarding the committal to custody and sentencing guidelines. With this regulations, the YCJA policy is tough since the youths are accorded adult sentences. This is one of the reasons the YCJA has been considered controversial. For instance, section sixty-one of YCJA stipulates that young offenders can be granted an adult sentence as long as they are proven guilty of committing an offense that their adult counterparts are liable to about two years in prison. However, with a heightened public uproar, the rules associated with presumptive offenses were amended on February 2002. In this amendment, the provincial government was provided with the mandate to set the lower age limit that applies to youth offenses. Nevertheless, it was still evident that fourteen-year-old youths will receive stricter sentences as their adult counterparts. This is because the implementation of the section sixty-one of YCJA varies across different territories and provinces. With this having been said, it is worth stating that the current Canadian youth criminal justice act is tougher on youth crimes. Based on this concept, is it ethical to sentence a fourteen-year-old to life in imprisonment? In analyzing this concept, it is worth noting that at the age of fourteen, youths are still considered to harbor less mature thoughts. Therefore, punishing such individual exhibits how the Canadian YCJA is misconceived.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Canadian youth justice legislation does not comply with the UN stipulations regarding child rights. For instance, the UN conventional statutes clearly state that sentences accorded young offenders should not be greater than the one offered to their respective adults. With this concept, the UN laws go further to stipulate that countries should adopt a minimum use of custody punishments among the young offenders. By doing so, the UN was insisting that various countries adopt the use of cautionary signs among other indicators that can be used to deter young offenders from recidivism. However, failure of the Canadian justice legislation system to adhere to these demands exhibits how it is tough on youth crimes. For example, section 39(5) of the YCJA purposefully directs the judges of the youth justice courts to disregard the child welfare statute when determining the sentences of the young offenders. Based on this concepts, it is evident that if the current YCJA stipulations are in force, the Canadian youths are more likely to receive no protection from the rules and guidelines enacted by the UN convention. In this case, is the YCJA an improvement to the Juvenile Delinquents Act?
Also, the Canadian YCJA failure to manage risks among young law offenders makes it tougher. The implemented supervision measures and deterrence custody vary across different territories which possess dangers to the management of young offenders. Considering that the defense courts, judges and provincial governments are provided with the discretion of determining youth sentences, they may handle such cases carelessly which creates risks in the management of behavior among teens. For instance, in 2014, the Canadian conservative leaders proposed that any youth found to have committed murder would have to face a life imprisonment sentence. In such a province, the police are more likely to treat young offenders with brutality. Therefore, YCJA failure to create standard sentencing of young offenders across the nation makes it tougher. With the local governments provided with the mandate to supervise and manage youth offenders, the youths are in danger of tougher consequences.
In a counter-argument, the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act is not tougher on the young offenders since it provides individuals under the age of fourteen the liberty to break the law. For instance, in 1986 only 3000 crimes were reported to have been committed by youths. However, following the enactment of YCJA, the defense department reported 4000 cases of youth crimes. With this statistical data, it is evident that the current justice legislation policies are not tougher on youths since they are not serving to deter crimes. Also, the current YCJA guidelines are not strict since the rate of recidivism among youths is still escalating. For example, in 2006, various cases of youths committing sexual assaults on two or more occasions were reported. These concepts help to reinforce the fact that YCJA is not working. With this knowledge, it is evident that the current rehabilitation of young offenders is flawed since it does not serve to protect the society from recidivism. Lastly, the YCJA is not tough on young law offender’s since it provides them with a right to have a lawyer. Based on this aspect, a young offender cannot be allowed to plead guilty until a judge ensures that the suspect understands the criminal charge and the available options.
In conclusion, the Canadian youth criminal justice is tough on youth crimes because it is based on the adulteration principles, does not comply with UN conventional policies and exposes them to more danger through poor risk management strategies. Considering that law offenders as young as fourteen years are not spared from tougher sentences, it is evident that YCJA has gone overboard in its mitigation of crime in the society. Also, drawing from the UN regulations, granting teenagers with sentences that are proportional to the ones accorded to their adult counterparts is wrong. However, these concepts help to reinforce the fact that YCJA is tougher on youth crimes. Since the provincial government is provided with the discretion to set age limits and the respective laws governing the sentencing of young law offenders, it further jeopardizes the rehabilitation of teenagers. As a result, young offenders are exposed to tougher consequences of the law. Therefore, it would be prudent for the Canadian government to readjust some statutes of its criminal justice system, to resonate with the UN conventional regulations.
References
Allen, Mary K., and Tamy Superle. "Youth crime in Canada, 2014." Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2016): 1.
Boyce, Jillian, Adam Cotter, and Samuel Perreault. "Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2013." Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2014): 1.
Covell, Katherine, R. Brian Howe, and J. C. Blokhuis. The challenge of children's rights for Canada . Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2018.
Crawford, Adam, and Tim Newburn. Youth offending and restorative justice . Willan, 2013.
Decker, Scott H., and Nerea Marteache, eds. International handbook of juvenile justice . Springer, 2017.
Doob, Anthony N., and Cheryl Marie Webster. "The" Truth in Sentencing," Act: The Triumph of Form over Substance." Canadian Criminal Law Review 17, no. 3 (2013): 365.
Goldson, Barry, and John Muncie, eds. Youth crime and justice . Sage, 2015.
Kelly, William R. Criminal Justice at the Crossroads: Transforming Crime and Punishment . Columbia University Press, 2015.
Roberts, Julian. Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice . Routledge, 2018.
