Youth Criminal Justice Act

“The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a piece of Canadian legislation...that determines the way in which youths are prosecuted under Canada’s criminal justice system.” The act was implemented April 1, 2003, after “7 years, 3 drafts, and more than 160 amendments.” The clearly stated purpose of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is “protection of the public through crime prevention, rehabilitation, and meaningful consequences (s.3(1)(a)(I-iii)).” For a better understanding on whether the courts were following the Youth Criminal Justice Act’s principles in practice, I went to Edmonton Law Courts and sat in on youth court. After reviewing the act in theory and practice, I argue that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is doing a fair job in fulfilling its’ purpose, but does need some improvements.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is the 3rd act implemented in Canada for dealing with youth in conflict with the law. Many of the act’s principles were borrowed from it’s predecessors, the Young Offender’s Act and the Juvenile Delinquent Act. “The YCJA builds on the strengths of the YOA and introduces significant reforms that address weaknesses in the YOA. The YCJA provides the legislative framework for a fairer and more effective youth justice system.” “The key objectives of the YCJA include clear and coherent principles to guide decision-making in youth justice matters; increased use of measure outside the formal court process...; fairness in sentencing...; a more targeted approach to the use of custody for young people...; an improvement in the system’s ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate young offenders; clear distinction between serious violent offences and less serious offences; [and] special measures for violent offenders that focus on intensive supervision and treatment.”

So how are these objectives of The Youth Criminal Justice Act being followed through in practice? The first case I seen was in docket court. A 16 year old Aboriginal girl was brought in with shackles on. She had been in custody for 23 days and was charged with driving without insurance, failure to provide photo identification, failure to appear in court and breach of probation. The girl also had a $500.00 fine. The defendant plead guilty to all of her charges. During the proceedings, the girl appeared to have little interest in the matter. Her social workers said that she had not followed through on anything and they have trouble maintaining contact with her. Her lawyer suggested that she should be assigned a probation officer to help remind her of her obligations and that she planned to live with her father and sibling after she was released. The judge than addressed the youth asking her questions like what has she learned in the past 23 days in custody and explained to the youth that the courts were in place to help her but that she has to be the one who wants the help. The girl barely responded and it was decided that no programs would help her since she was non-compliant and her $500.00 fine was dropped. The judge thought 23 days in custody was punishment enough and released her.

In this particular case, I believe that the Youth Criminal Justice Act failed the youth. Since the youth did not want help, she was not given any. There was nothing in place to make the defendant comply with any conditions. According to the Government of Justice in Canada, one objective of the YCJA is “an improvement in the system’s ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate young offenders.” In this particular case it is obvious that there is still room for improvement. There was no rehabilitation in this case and it seems as though the Youth Justice System can only help if the youth in conflict with the law wants the help. In a lot of offender’s cases they do not want the help, as with the example above. Therefore there is still a huge crack in the system and many youth appear to be falling through it.

In the next example, I observed a youth case in trial court. The defendant was a 17 year old Caucasian male that had an assault charge, breach of probation and a $50.00 fine. The defendant plead guilty to all of his charges. To begin the judge gave the defendant more time to pay his fine. Then the prosecutor began by saying that the defendant was non-compliant, had consistently sabotaged the people around him, and that his mother had called him a selfish individual. Since the defendant had been on probation he had constantly committed new offences. At one point, he had been living in a group home and six days after sentencing he had committed new offences. The crown requested that he should be sentenced 6 months deferred custody.

The defendants own lawyer responded by telling the judge she really enjoys her client and that all he was, was a nuisance. Although he was a nuisance to probation officers, the court, and the group home he was not a violent