Chapter 1 Lecture Notes

we have had 3 different regimes (legislatures) that have evolved over the years

in the 1980’s and 1990's there was a more “tough on crime approach”

the creation of the term “juvenile delinquency” created the juvenile court system

but as time progressed, we started to view youth differently. this shift created the youth criminal justice system.

there is this constant back and forth between the idea of “reformable” and “punishable” young offenders

• “reformable” - the concept that we can rehabilitate some troubled young offenders

• “punishable” - the concept that some young offenders are so troublesome that they require punishment in order to be held accountable (and likely are not viewed as reformable within this construct)

“while there are many commonalities that link the historical development and current state of juvenile systems across various western countries, there are also important historical, cultural, and political differences that make Canada’s approach unique to handling youth justice” - prof

he claimed that the modern concept of childhood was discovered in the 17th century, as prior to this there were very few distinctions made between children and adults based on age.

he was the first to argue and identify that children are different and should be viewed differently from adults

ppl ran with the idea of arise to argue that children should be treated differently in a criminal context.

3 age-graded levels

1. no criminal accountability

2. limited criminal accountability

3. full criminal accountability

also the concept of diminished criminal responsibility (which we think kids and youth should have)

judges were given discretionary power to deal with delinquents as they seen fit

the JDA’s differentiation between “boys and girls” also has modern implications for our current youth criminal justice act

J.J. Kelso (mentioned a lot in textbook) was deemed a key actor in this movement

kids used to be criminally responsible as low as the age of 7 and could be imprisoned or held fully criminally responsible at the age of 7. Things like this pushed for the movement to have children treated differently in the eyes of the law.

Kingston pen - canadas first correctional facility. Antoine was the youngest prisoner recorded

• he was lashed 47 times over a 9-month period due to minor infractions in prison (like laughing)

  • he would be physically abused for partaking in typical childhood behaviour

Sarah Jane Pierce was the youngest girl inmate in Kingston Penitentiary, serving her sentence at the age of just 9

ALL THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE JDA

the JDA also emphasised rehabilitation as well as the notion that children are different from adults in many ways and should be treated as such.

the term “juvenile delinquency” emerged as the creation of the juvenile justice system was being created as it merged all possible criminal offences a child could commit under the one common title of “juvenile delinquency”

• applied to youth between the ages of 7-16

  • meaning the offence youth were found guilty of was “delinquency” rather than a specific crime as adults would face

issue: the reach of what was “delinquent” reached far greater than just illegal activity for adults, but also included some non-criminal matters for youth that were deemed to put them at risk

• anyone found guilty of delinquency would be adjudicated as a delinquent.

as previously mentioned, the non-criminal yet delinquent acts would be considered “status offences”. they would still deem someone delinquent but wouldn’t be considered illegal if an adult were to commit a status offence.

judges had A LOT of discretionary power as to what constituted a status offence

probation was a key feature for youth with the creation of the JDA

the doctrine of parens patriae made it so the state could hold children indefinitely until they were deemed by the state to be reformed

this board legislation caused disproportionate sentencing

• it created very unequal treatment

  • also, it varied significantly between provinces. different provinces had different maximum/minimum ages for those covered by the JDA.

    • Alberta, for example, had different cut-off ages depending on gender as well.

concerns about these problems were not meanginfuly addressed until the enactment of the Young Offenders Act

The YOA had new priorities when compared to the JDA. it further emphasized due process, the protection of society, and “diversion” or alternative measures

despite this, it had unintended consequences

• Canada, in the 1990s, had some of the highest youth incarceration rates in the world.

  • this was due to the limited guidance instructed in the act, so police did not really know how or when to use the diversion/alternative measures and just would arrest them.

• expert analysis would study the impact of imprisonment and custody which eventually would lead to the repeal of the YOA in 2002, which would lead to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in 2003 (YCJA)

our current act has maintained relative popularity in the modern day

it did not fundamentally change the structure of the YOA, but rather the YCJA provided greater emphasis and clarity as to sentencing options, extrajudicial measures, etc…

• The YCJA greatly encourages diversion (extra judicial measures) and states that it is enough to hold first-time non-violent young offenders accountable for their actions.