The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) was enacted in 2003 to replace the Youth Offenders Act. Some key changes included giving youth court judges authority to impose adult sentences and placing more emphasis on treatment for violent young offenders. The YCJA was designed to balance accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration of youth offenders under 18. Its goals reflect both the functionalist perspective of serving distinct social functions for youth, as well as the rationalist perspective in its evidence-based creation, though some argue lawmakers defined harm in their own interests per the conflict perspective.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) was enacted in 2003 to replace the Youth Offenders Act. Some key changes included giving youth court judges authority to impose adult sentences and placing more emphasis on treatment for violent young offenders. The YCJA was designed to balance accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration of youth offenders under 18. Its goals reflect both the functionalist perspective of serving distinct social functions for youth, as well as the rationalist perspective in its evidence-based creation, though some argue lawmakers defined harm in their own interests per the conflict perspective.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) was enacted in 2003 to replace the Youth Offenders Act. Some key changes included giving youth court judges authority to impose adult sentences and placing more emphasis on treatment for violent young offenders. The YCJA was designed to balance accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration of youth offenders under 18. Its goals reflect both the functionalist perspective of serving distinct social functions for youth, as well as the rationalist perspective in its evidence-based creation, though some argue lawmakers defined harm in their own interests per the conflict perspective.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) was enacted in 2003 to replace the Youth Offenders Act. Some key changes included giving youth court judges authority to impose adult sentences and placing more emphasis on treatment for violent young offenders. The YCJA was designed to balance accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration of youth offenders under 18. Its goals reflect both the functionalist perspective of serving distinct social functions for youth, as well as the rationalist perspective in its evidence-based creation, though some argue lawmakers defined harm in their own interests per the conflict perspective.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 8
The Youth Criminal Justice Act
The Youth Criminal Justice act was enacted on April 1, 2003 as the replacement of
the previous Youth Offenders act. The federal government made several important
changes to the act, such as youth offenders will no longer be transferred to adult courts as
the act gives youth court judges the authority to impose adult sentences. Moreover, the act
places more emphasis on treatment for violent young offenders compared to the previous
act. In sum, the Youth Criminal Justice act was designed to protect and oversee youth
offenders under the age of 18 with the principle goals of accountability, rehabilitation and
reintegration (Department of Justice).
The History of the Youth Criminal Justice Act & its lawmaking process
The origin of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) can be traced to the first
juvenile justice law in Canada, the Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA), in 1908. As the
recognition between the difference of youth crimes and adult crimes, society needed a
distinct law to deal with youth offenders. In addition, the act emerged as the public
became significantly concerned with youth crimes, its legal remedies and the severity of
punishments. For example, before 1908, youth offenders convicted of petty theft were
sent to same prisons as adult offenders. In turn, it increased the rate of recidivism as youth
offenders were heavily influenced by the nature of the prison (Briggs). In 1908, the
Juvenile Delinquents Act represented a major philosophical change to youth crimes as
youth offenders under the age of 18 were sent to to youth justice courts where the justice
system was based on the social welfare approach that centered on the best interest of the
child (Makarenko). Moreover, offenders were often charged with delinquency and children were rarely incarcerated. The act lasted for roughly 75 years before it was
amended and replaced by the Youth Offenders Act on April 2, 1984. It was replaced as the
JDA had several contradictions to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was
introduced in 1982 (Department of Justice).
The Youth Offenders act (YOA) represented another change in philosophical
principle as it shifted from the welfare approach towards the principle of accountability.
The most remarkable change in the YOA was that children could no longer be charged
with delinquency, instead, they were charged with violating a specific statute or section of
the criminal code. In addition, the maximum sentence for any crime was three years.
However, the YOA did not last long as it quickly caused heavy debates within the public
and expert field. The public argued that the act was too lenient as many youths were given
3 year sentences for serious crimes such as murder. In addition, the public demanded for a
justice system with harder punishments such as longer periods of incarceration and a
system based on the principle of retribution (Makarenko). On the contrary, the expert
field argued that the act was too harsh as the youth incarceration rate increased
significantly surpassing the United States, Australia and many European countries
(Makarenko).
As a result of the constant debate and heavy sentiments from both sides, it was
obvious that there was a need for change, thus, the Youth Criminal Justice Act was
initiated. The demand for amendments started in 1997, 6 years after the peak of the youth
incarceration rate in Canada. The standing committee on Justice and legal affairs
submitted a report to the House of Commons with recommendations to mend the YOA. On March, 11, 1999 the act was introduced as Bill C-68 by the federal government. It was
later reintroduced in October, but had failed due to an election call. Nonetheless, the
federal government reintroduced the bill as Bill C-7 before the parliament on February 5,
2001 (Department of Justice). Bill C-7 consisted of more than 160 amendments that
addressed the weakness of the YOA. Hence, after two years of preparation and
examination, the Youth Criminal Justice Act received Royal Assent and was born on April
1, 2003 (Stats Canada, 2006).
Youth Criminal Justice Act and its impact
One of the major features of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is that it increased the
number of extrajudicial measures available such as police warning, referral to restorative
justice agencies, and deferred custody orders. In addition, it urged judges to consider all
alternatives to avoid incarceration while it recommended police officers to consider
warnings or administer cautions to the offender before laying charges (Makarenko).
Clearly, the act benefits youth offenders under the age of 18 as these offenders have
higher chances of receiving warnings and restitution demands from the police rather than
entering a formal trial. In addition, youth offenders also have the lesser chance of being
incarcerated if convicted in the court as judges must exhaust all alternatives to rehabilitate
the offender. Another distinct feature of the act is that under the minimum age section,
children under the age of twelve cannot be convicted for their crimes (Youth Justice Act).
Undoubtedly, children under the age of twelve benefit the most from the act as they are
granted immunity from criminal sanctions.
The principles goals of the YCJA are to hold offenders accountable, provide various rehabilitation methods for youth offenders and reintegrate them back into society. Thus,
offenders are often sentenced to perform community services and restorative justice
programs. Consequently, many parents of youth offenders also benefit from this policy as
their children are taught the important lesson to not break the law while receiving a
second chance to do good in society. One may argue the act also benefits communities as
restorative justice programs aim to bring the offender, victims and the community
together with the goal of repairing the damaged relationships. Moreover, society as whole
benefits from this policy as statistics showed that the act has significantly reduced the
rates of incarceration among youth (Stats Canada, 2007). Hence, more youths are
rehabilitated and recidivism declines while society observes a decreasing rate in youth
crime.
On the other hand, the Youth Criminal Justice Act may not benefit and even harm
certain groups of the population. Offenders ages 18 and above does not benefit from the
policy as they can’t be trialed at a youth justice court. In addition, the new act amended
the previous 3 year maximum sentences provision. Therefore, longer incarceration
sentences can be given by judges depending on the severity of the offense. For example,
under the YCJA the maximum sentence for first degree murder is 10 years while second
degree murder sets at 7 years as oppose of the previous 3 year maximum condition (Youth
Criminal Justice Act). Noticeably, one can argue that the act “harms” offenders convicted
of serious crimes as they receive longer sentences than in the past. Nevertheless, the
“harm” can be seen as a benefit to society as these young violent offenders are treated
separately from society for a longer period of time.
Sociological Perspectives and the Youth Criminal Justice Act
The functionalist approach states that the law serves as a function of society just like
any other segment in society, ultimately contributing to the survival and maintenance as a
whole. Sociological theorists such as Comte, Durkheim, Parsons and Merton believe that
society is made of interrelated parts and each part is important in preserving the well-
being of our economy (Vago & Nelson, p.44) Consistent with the functionalist theory, the
YCJA was designed to serve the youth offenders as children are recognized to have a
distinct function than the adults in society. Unlike adults, children often make mistakes
and break the law without fully understanding the nature of their mistakes and the harm
they have caused. Thus, children require special treatments to teach, protect and give
them a second chance in society. YCJA serves that exact function as it offers youth
offenders a separate and distinct justice system. Moreover, the act protects children from
the social stigma of labeling and provides them with a chance to reintegrate into society.
The case of the “Bathtub girl” serves a good example of the functions of the YCJA.
The case involved a 15 year old girl and her 16 year old sister that were trialed and
convicted of murdering their mother in 2003 under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Both
girls received a 10 year imprisonment sentence, but an appeal court decision released the
younger one on parole after four years of imprisonment (Mitchell). The news caught huge
media attention when the 15 year old was accepted as a student by the University of
Waterloo in 2010. Under the publication prohibition section of the YCJA, publishers were
forbidden to publish the name of the girl and any materials that can be used to trace her
identity. Clearly, this section served the function of protecting youth offenders that have served their sentences from social stigmatization by holding their identity in secrecy.
Furthermore, because of the YCJA the girl was treated and reintegrated into society as a
functional member and a student at the University of Waterloo.
The lawmaking process of the Youth Criminal Justice Act evidently reflects on the
rationalist model as the act was created as a rational means of protecting youth offenders
from social harm. However, a principle difficulty with the rationalist model is that it is the
lawmakers and powerful interest groups who define what activities are harmful to the
public welfare (Vago & Nelson, p.119). As a result, one can also argue that the YCJA is a
reflection of the conflict perspective.
The conflict theory proposes that the law is used as a method of social control by the
ruling class (Vago & Nelson, p.46). In addition, Karl Marx argues that laws are enacted
with the purpose to control the poor working class to maintain the ruling class’s social
advantage in society. Researches have showed that there is a link between youth crime
and socio-economic status. In a review of small area geographic analysis in Ottawa and
Saskatoon, it revealed that youth crime rates are higher in low socio-economic status and
high number of racial minority communities (Department of Justice). Thus, one can argue
the majority of youth offenders are from the poor working class. In addition, the Youth
Criminal Justice Act is merely a law used by the ruling class to control behaviors of the
poor working class youths. Under this perspective, although the YCJA protects youth
offenders, the method of protection and legal remedies are generated in the best interest of
the ruling class. For example, one may argue this law avoids sending youth offenders to
prisons because eventually these youth offenders will become a part of the manual labor force that is needed by the ruling class. Thus, by avoiding imprisonment and allowing
reintegration these youth offenders can enter the labor force earlier and contribute to the
overall wealth of the ruling class.
In conclusion, one can argue both the functionalist and conflict approach can be used
to explain the specific aspects of the Youth Criminal Justice Act from a sociological
perspective. However, one might keep in mind that these sociological theorist does not
account for the creation of all laws as it merely explain partially how and why laws are
created.
Work Cited
Briggs, Catherine. Lecture 4 power point. Hist 277 Canadian Legal History
Department of Justice. "Exploring the Link between Crime and Socio-Economic Status in
Ottawa and Saskatoon: A Small-Area Geographical Analysis." Jan. 08, 2010
