Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Contenu archivé
L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.
Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.
Copyright of this document does not belong to the Cnwn.Proper authorization must be obtained from the author forany intended use.
Les droits d'auteur du présent document n'appartiennentpas à l'État. Toute utilisation du contenu du présentdocument doit être approuvée préalablement par l'auteur.
LVPU1ATION OF THE PROPMED YOM",Q. r ^ LEGISLATIdAT
Criminal Justice Policy ResearcY. SectionResearch DivisionMiniszr.y of the Solicitor GeneralMay 1979
t
tI
KE9445C651978c. 2
t
1I1111IIIttI1II
F} Pro Fs4a ;\'U^ E._A.\ c.l• e^ , a(
^^^ ^ CAAV^ks
^C-'4y &LI c, ^1 c9Y
The following material draws on the paper "A Proposed Research and EvaluationStrategy for the Young Offenders Act" prepared by Dennis Conly.
1. The Chart
The first part consists of a chart which attempts to slannarize thedicussion in the Conly paper regarding: the flow of assumptionsunderlying the legislative proposals, actions proposed by the legislationand anticipated effects of the legislation. The material used from theConly paper is mainly from Section I, "General Assumptions and Objectivesof the Young Offenders Act" and from certain parts of Section II, "AnExamination of the Working Assumptions, Objectives, Possible Consequencesand Research Possibilities, related to the Key Legislative Foci of theYoung Offenders Act". In particular, the chart makes use of the parts on"Working Assumptions" and "Objectives" although some of the materialunder "Consequences" was also utilized.
The chart consists of essentially three parts. The first part titled"Case-flow", outlines assumptions regarding conditions antecedent tocontact with the criminal justice system and the philosophy regarding howjuveniles are to be dealt with once contact is made. The second partoutlines the major aspects of an increased enQhasis on procedures andrights of young persons in contact with the juvenile justice system. Thethird part outlines trends with regard to dispositions for youngpersons. Within parts 2 and 3 there is an attenpt to isolate in separatestrata: asscanptions underlying specific proposed actions, the proposedactions, and intended consequences of the proposed actions.
2. Research Projects and Zhemes
The second part of the attached material consists of a listing ofresearch projects and themes and of other information gatheringactivities which follow from the main legislative foci (as presented inthe Conly paper and stmmarized in the chart). These projects are basedmostly on the material presented in the chart although they also draw onthe "Possible Consequences" and "Research Possibilities" portions ofSection II of the Conly paper.
It is anticipated that further research projects will arise when effortsare made to inplement the legislation. The portions of the Conly paperon "Possible Consequences" and "Research Possibilities" should prove tobe of further use at that time.
^^.^.....
M:NI::7Y ^
_.^.^....^.
r,.,, -^ -\L
N AR 12198I
91BL107H:Quc. ,WNISTÈRE DU S0LLICi1c R G.NERAL
1
I
POLICY PROPOSALS ON YOM OFFENDERS AND JUSMILE JUSTICE
Statement of the Policy, Underlying Philosophy and Assumptions
MUM OFFENDERS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE
Policy proposals
The policy proposals on young offenders and juvenile justice, their underlying assumptions and philosophy are outlined in the attached chart.
The chart attempts graphically to display the relationships among the assumptions and philosophical stances underlying the policy proposals, the actions which would follow from the assumptions and the intended impact cf these actions. This material is based on an analysis, prepared by the Ministry, cf official documents and on discussions with policy planners. This chart has served as a partial guide and rationale for the Ministry's programme of research in juvenile justice and in particular for the study of the FUnctioning of the Juvenile Court. It provides a structure within which the present juvenile justice process should be examined so as to permit the gathering of information relative to the policy proposals, the assessment of their fit with procedures under the peesent Juvenile Delinguelt Act and the examination of their likely impact.
... Note about the Policy Proposals
The philosophy being outlined in the policy proposals recognizes a distinction between young persons who are in need and those who are possibly guilty of a criminal offence. Those who are in need would no longer be dealt with by the juvenile justice system but would be screened out and referred to the social system. This means that under such a system the juvenile courts would no longer deal with what are currently considered "status offences".
Concommitantly, under the new proposals, there is a shift in the way in which young persons before the juvenile court would be perceived and treated. A main assumption in this new philosophy is that young persons have the capacity, albeit lesser than that of adults, to be held responsible for their acts, thus they should be judged on an offence basis and receive an adjudication as to guilt or innocence as opposed to a judgement of their condition. Also, there is an increased emphasis placed on the "protection of society" in the peoposals. No longer is the welfare of the child the main concern, but rather the attempt is to strive for a balance between the protection of society and the welfare of the child. Thus, in the peoposals this emphasis on the offence, determination cf guilt or innocence and protection of society has led to an increased concern with legal procedures and rights. There is an attempt within these procedures and rights to recognize the limited capacity and responsibility on the part of young persons.
2
Finally, the proposals state the need for a wider variety ofoffence-based dispositions which hold the young person accountable andreflect an increased concern for protection of society, whilerecognizing the limited accountability of the young persons and thepotential risks of state intervention into their lifes.
11^IIIi1IIIII
P(LICY PROPCl6AI.S aN YOU14G 0FFEM"SAND JUVENILE JUSTICE
Statement of the Policy, Underlying
Philosophy and Assunptions
mer mm mmman^ mmommms mm mm m
Dotted boxes and lines highlight additional explanatory material or assunptions
Solid boxes indicate places at which questions regarding capacity arise.
ill MI am MIR MD MIR 1111111 111111 MI MI OM MI 111111 111111 eel
* Young Person in need
Social System (Rather than juvenile justice system
Screening
- - - Criminal Offence
G010 PROCEDURES AND RIG/ITS
Disposition giving due recognition of and corresponding to the nature and seriousness ce the offence and which holds the young person responsible and accountable.
1 GO 'IC DISPOSITICUS
Fais on guilt or innocence and offence basis results in an emphasis on procedure & rights (Young person has same rights as adults). Young persons have special needs and limited capacity In comparison with adults. Therefore special procediral safeguards are necessary.
CASE Fla/
Social and Environmental Conditions
Disillusionment, Conflict between morals of society
at large and ce young persons
Young Perscns are being unnecessarily criminalized
"Young person has the capacity bo understand the nature and consequences ce his illegal behaviour" (12-18)
Provincial and Municipal Responsibility (Non-criminal behaviour)
Juvenile Justice System (with protection of society at its base)
Decision as to guilt ce innocence (offence basis)
UM 11111 Mall MIMI MIMI MI me NM MI MP IMP MIMI MO an MI MIMI MI INN 11111111
12papm,e wiw
W tc a.*. `b -.trl
- W w 1.^ aw.l r^..Y11. 1• wwartirr e^
Y1M11m - ^W - M /t•wt
r .^tr.lr q a.rl
I,MM. M^e we•1•yr.l
IIMIwwN.1MrM In..wti I.rM..^
d tM ^rt ^..(A Iw. I..^ orrlt^l J.It.
r Y oaect Ywlr^ .nll t. r1.c.•w tn
w I.IJ• b ^taw^t tl^..
l/./.t• to a.rl..allt- ul..w..w d tl „t w/Mls d Mrr.. wwr ll..r.tt... .l^.el, .d.1^ M We -^su1e •rlalwl c
0
4c..rd rtr^ d r-1^.^ct Is .IM• W
•r. r r11 ^ N11Rlal^^/i^ Iw aafrboMLf
n1u.N ..erllre u^r/n In rAe ^tt^.IM r pw
^J
_______-isrd t 1. ^r
l}^bM
rtrM.lr Lsr d -r On.IMwr .IO .rrt bd .sWUr
Ir± r... .
h.r,l I+•.+^Yr.l t. • M ^ew.Y^Y.J.y.r•YrIIN.Id 1Wt.^.►rM^eYI.wws Irt. ' w r^atr.
Iwl
Y. Met^dYlw
^.^u.rA r Wlt.^.
ul r t.ti^lr
M.Iw ^ IW .owl. Nt.rt d t.l.l•. wcM1^w. W twn^, re1MNr P^+.1 WRr.r. R.
.l .r.wlq .•waq ^I7uaw..yvu,
/t,^Mb ^iM. r••• r I^t•Irla^. pWalv
rwW pt^Yt.•. rM., NIYr1^ dMw ^1. 3lo.+^+t•.ae/tlw W.swYA 11^trl^ d uNr.t..-9.e1J wIW4 r/ Wr7rrl..r.rrMYtI^.
Yiww trtlciwb
O.N.t w^ d Iwwl.t^.tr -
rw1.w tnp•IMlltr OWw ^•^ d j^eb
Awl•la+ ny1N1A .Ilr 1^aw r rata mrt^ll.^/llrl^wr. .•^• .M• r r•1rnmr ^• o r ^IqYnd, qltrN I•M^Iw w Ir
•^I d•ewltbr, !+J-ur 1
w.lcl ...--{
W wyr^ .yl^l
prlJ MrU.Y•r
1=d oatur^
d rM...•r+'• r^tr•+
^woYwr/MtlwqwN1e.
^n.^d ++.1.1w--
t1. •wr I.rtrss.. 1.. w d
tlr.r.w..tNf .d T.wl P.O.w1.n/
,AIwMrN..ynltt.r rA.wrlw. r.nJd. 1. uWR
YWw r.o ^'ITrldr rt rltM^
: .t. ii""b u 'I: Irw r+Ytlw w-t9r!•.T
. ►twl .o. 1. . I.r^ ?c .Yrl^a Jl111^
1I. Pctkr, - p•qrw^r r. rwwrlir
tt1 ^ r•s•t11Jy.lw. d Il.rer
•^..ylAd.w.. :. -.-....-..-`mrl r wll.........!
1 - ^-^ - 1nrrt^ b yll mrt, rM^1^ra1tloN n.lwr IYU..IY 1. r ►lo•t M w
tNN ta . t.^r1n p^ai.. rlcl. ^Iw• d rtwlNw rn. sr. d r Wlt
`el.lw. ^J tro• . l'^•^ mrt mwlr^ w.r•nlw d .Yt. Fatallw
lat rclM^ rww. ur .ar r^1 ^e1Mr 1. w.wYly d ••cl•.r 1•
^rrrw I..Iq AI- rlwld.JMpllkrl MMr•
/t..r.lu. hotatb
d ^ct.tr
^wl M Isllltlw OowtlwW+e.etwlb•b• iYt •n In w.^w r rl/w• -_ -_
Ywt. .y1t.A d ^ Ynrw 6+1.4
IHw.Y rJri..-lot
tn.d.I1^s11h I ^
hut.n rl^t• r /tuwlb 4..twIrn.M. A /w, d acHtr b^.Y111^rK+
^ am= Mirr mm mmm ==^ mmais mmr
ACTION
HYPOTHESES REGARDING IMPACT
o1erœ1T10113
[ birie . Pei. enraÏ special swede aid are le» aocoestaids thee eats
A variety 01 sentencing optics» are necessary toe the protecting. or moiety 'custodial »le necessary ed cœmmilty ewe an( i iciest)
Shedd be maintained mparately lee adults in Mee ard comemalty MM. pride
ASSUMPTIONS
In area instance the educational reforleigY ard reeponsibility produced ter a mutt opposer/ice am mill-cleat to ad =Wee* eith tde protacting society
Forge pronedural selemerde and 11.11e dieceetiOney peers are Met
• I done pergola is» the • right, »We suet he • salemardel to Ism »et "" - 1 :_leydkpedibt to Ida
Casrmit diepomitione do rot adequately provide lot empensation to victim or bar paintence d °agility smelts
L,
State interventie I em manatee coroespenote
Meal pomade» with centrals*
ateolute Meese» Deterninant »emu leperate detention Ommelity-deeed Cepereatory digest tines ewe aide Hiposeitiord diagogitions
1 I
or 2 years memo
Greeter men» bi I I ty
I levotiors elf »chile»
Seater »nee Public of Jeet Maisel»
drmentlon end divereim
Jurisdiction limits, mime. SCIAIMIlli diastole Were not feconelatent uites U.
protection of society
1,. Greater parental reaponeibIllty
Creamery end Ise ly involvenent
involvement and protect on or victim amine hare done
URI MI MIMI MI MI MI Mt OM Ili all MI MI UM alb UM MI Be am as
IIIIII
RESEARCH PRQTEC'PS AND TfEMES
IIIII111IIIt
1. FUNCTIONING OF THE JUVENILE COURT
As can be seen from the chart, a major portion of the legislation is devoted to action regarding rights and procedures. This emphasis follows quite logically the change to a focus on the determinaticn of guilt or innocence and on the offence.
Given this emphasis on rights and peocedures it is clear that a major information gathering effort should be expended in this area.
Proposed is a case flow study of the functioning of the juvenile court. The study would basically answer the question: 'Who does what to whom; for what reason and with what consequences?"
This study could be used as a baseline data source for evaluating the effect of the legislation, could contribute to the Implementation of the legislation in ways suggested in the other information gathering activities listed in this paper, could provide relevant research findings when the proposed legislation is referred to committee and would even be useful in the absence of the Young Offenders Legislation as it would peovide much needed information about the operation of the juvenile courts.
The case flow study would provide information relevant to the hypotheses regarding "Impact" listed on the summary chart. As well, it would provide baseline information useful in later evaluating the extent to which the legislation attained some of its other objectives (as outlined in the Conly paper): to re-define the relationship between the young offender and the State (i.e. change fram a paternalistic mcdel, p. 13), to improve awareness of the fact that young persons retain all the fundamental rights and liberties similar to those of adults (p. 35), to ensure parental awareness and involvement in peoceedings (p. 39), to encourage the participation of young persons in proceedings against them (p. 43), to give recognition to the special state of dependency and level of development and maturity of young persons (p. 49), to locate in certain hands decision-making for certain stages of the process - e.g. youth court and the nature of dispositions (p. 67) and police and detention decisions (p. 73), to provide control over access to youth court records (p. 86).
2. DISPOSITIONS
As can be seen from the chart a second main thrust is in the area of dispositions with an emphasis being placed on the use of dispositions which all the young person to remain in the home and in the community.
a) Impact of Alternative Sentences
The peoposed case flow study will yield information on decision-making regarding the selection and administration cf dispositions. It will not yield information regarding the impact that the implementation of such a sentence would have on young persons, the juvenile justice system and society. Therefore, a separate research effort would be required to examine such impact.
This research would assess the assumptions (which are included in the chart) regarding dispositions and would assess as well the extent to which such sentences met the principal juvenile justice system objectives of the protection cf society, the protection of the rights and interests of young people (p. 26 - Oonly paper) and the limiting cf unnecessary state intervention in the lives of young people (p. 55).
b) Evaluation of Screening
Screening and diversion has been identified as one of the main foci of the legislation (Conly, p. 60). In particular, the provisions propose factors that should be considered in screening decisions regarding juveniles (Highlights, pp. 14-15) and identify actions that should not be seen as supported by the legislation (pp. 15-16).
Once legislation is enacted, it will be necessary to conduct research which describes formal screening peocedures established by the provinces as a consequence of enactment of the legislation. This research shculd examine the extent to which the proposed legislative criteria are applied and the extent to which proscribed actions occur under the various screening models.
In those regions in which formal established, studies of informal conducted in order to assess the legislative criteria and to form systems.
screening mechanisms are not police screening practices should be extent to which they meet a point of comparison for formal
The proposed research would be similar in nature and intent to the 7Functioning cf the Juvenile Court Study" but would focus primarily on an earlier stage cf contact between juveniles cf the juvenile justice system. The descriptive information peovided by the research would be relevant to the basic juvenile justice system objectives outlined in a) above. This information would in turn peovide the knowledge necessary for further, more analytic research and would provide suggestions potentially useful for the formulation of additional legislative criteria.
C) Evaluation of Diversion with Juveniles
Young persons who are screened out cf the formal juvenile justice process will frequently be referred to some type of diversion program. EValuation of these peograms would shed light on assumptions highlighted in the summary chart, such as the assumption that formal procedures should be invoked with reluctance. It would as well provide information about the extent to which diversion met the principal juvenile justice system objectives outlined in a) above and would provide suggestions as to appropriate legislative guidelines for diversion programs for juveniles.
An evaluation strategy for diversion with adults has already been proposed and may apply to diversion with juveniles as well.
3. CAPACITY OF YOUNG PERSONS
At several points the proposed legislation appears to us to be based, explicitly ce implicitly, on assumptions regarding the capacity of the young person to understand the nature and consequences of his behaviour and the nature and consequences of various aspects of the juvenile justice process and to make use to his own advantage of the rights and procedures available to him. For example, a central assumption is that young persons have the capacity, albeit lesser than that of adults, to be held responsible for their acts. Furthermore, procedural safeguards have been included in recognition of the lessened capacity which young persons are assumed to have in relation to adults. A principal implicit assumption underlying the proposals is that these special procedural safeguards, in combination with the increased participation of parents and the young person's basic right to counsel, are sufficient to protect a young person's rights in the light cf his reduced capacity. As well, the specification of an age range of 12-17 carries with it implicit assumptions about the ages at which certain capacities are or are not present.
Information about the capacity cf young persons therefore would provide information relevant to the debates on the legislation or to attempts to design the specific procedures that would be necessary for putting the legislation into effect.
In the short term, the Research Division can provide assessments of whatis known in this area (literature reviews). Two reviews are alreadyplanned for 1979-80: one will examine young persons' perceptions andunderstanding of specific aspects of the criminal justice process; thesecond will examine the literature on young persons' mental capacitiesand concepts of justice.
As well, longer term research designed to examine issues particularlygermane to the legislation would be desirable as would be research onfactors such as: concepts of justice in young persons, the limits totheir abilities to acquire different concepts and limits to theircapacity to reason in legal terms.
IIItIIIIII1II
The proposed case flow study could provide sane preliminary findings onthe young person's capacity to understand the court process. Theseresults would offer some guidance for the development of future projectsin the area.
As well as providing information relevant to perceived assumptions in thelegislation regarding capacity, such research would generally be usefulwith regard to discussion of the main legislative foci in the areas ofage jurisdiction (Conly, p. 16), participation of young persons (p. 13)and, perhaps, transfer to adult court (p. 80).
4. EVAIUATICN OF ICN AND IMPACT CF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THELDGISLATIGN
Once the legislation has been implemented, it will be necessary toconduct research that examines the extent to which the legislation hasbeen inplemented as planned and produces the intended effects.
Repeating the case flow study once the legislation has been in effect forseveral years will provide some information about the implementation andimpact of provisions regarding procedures and rights.
The proposed research on dispositions will also be relevant to theevaluation of specific legislative'provisions.
Although the research thrusts already identified will likely provideinformation for many of the concerns arising out of the legislation,additional needs may arise with regard to specific provisions. Forexanple, it may beccme necessary to obtain detailed information about thespecific procedures used in various jurisdictions to inplement provisionsconcerning access to records and about the extent to which theseprocedures allow the intended effect of the provisions to be net.
I
5.. LEGISLATION MONITORING
Provincial and municipal legislation and regulations could substantially affect the ease of implementation cf the legislation and changes in these could possibly mitigate the desired impact of the legislation. FUrthermore, there may be gaps left by the proposed Young Offenders Legislation which will have to be covered by the provinces and municipalities.
In preparing for the legislation, provincial and municipal legislation and regulations should be analyzed. FUrthermore, legislative and regulatory changes occurring after the legislation cames into effect Should be mcnitored to assess their effect on the impact of the Young Offenders Legislation.
The major foci in Dennis Conly's paper identify the major areas in which such legislation and regulation should be examined. His paper also presents some preliminary suggestions as to topic areas in which legislation monitoring is important (e.g. provincial and municipal response to changes in the offence jurisdiction of the new legislation. This is relevant to the overall legislation objective cf changing the relationship between the young offender and the state).
6. PROVISION OF INPDR4ATICN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES
There are a number of decision points for which specific procedures and guidelines should be developed. These decision points need to be identified and appropriate suggestions made (e.g. Determining criteria for assessing: when young persons should be removed from home and/or community settings, Cooly, p. 59, when the use of secure custody is necessary, p. 75).
7. MCNTORING (Development of Information Systems)
Evaluating the legislation will require gathering quantitative information from across Canada on the functioning of the juvenile justice system. Information useful to management decision-making is being referred to here and includes such things as the numbers of juveniles appearing on different charges, receiving different dispositions, making appeals, etc.
Most desirable in this regard would be the development of a unified information system.
8. EDUCATIONAL PROCESS
Some of the innovations contained within the legislation (e.g. within the areas of dispositions and procedural safeguards) will require that juvenile justice system personnel and portions of the public having direct contact (e.g. schools) with the system are made aware of them and their implications. Additionally, the use of community based dispositions and diversion require collaboration of the public.
I
II1IIIIIII
III
Ideally, appropriate educational processes should be designed, assessedand modified on the basis of monitoring information.
9. PROVIDING INFOi2MATI0N FOR THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS FOR LDGISLATIONIMPIIMENTATION
A process for aiding the provinces and individual courts in implementingthe legislation needs to be established. Information may be necessarywhich would aid in discussion with the provinces and courts in terms ofidentifying implications of the legislation and suggesting techniques forinplementing parts of the legislation. As an example, informationregarding the current use of the offence category "contributing" may helpthe provinces adapt to its elimination from the proposed legislation.
The consequences section of each of the legislative foci listed in theConly paper contains some of the implications of the legislation andsuggests actions which may be taken in these areas. For example, withregard to age jurisdiction, there are estimates of the effect of thechange in jurisdiction on case flow and indications of where newprovincial legislation may be necessary.
10. ASSFSSMIIJT CF I2ESOURCES
Full i.mQlementaticn of the legislation requires the existence of adequateresources in such areas as oamunity based dispositions, legal aid(Ccnly, p. 45), etc. An effort should be made both before inplementationand afterward to assess where scarcity of resources exists and how theseaffect the ability of the legislation to fulfil its aims.
I
I I
I I I
I I I I
A PROPOSED RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
STRATEGY FOR THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
1 I I
Prepared bv: Denis Conly
Under contract with the Research & Systems Development Branch of the Ministry of the Solicitor General
July, 1978
I I I I
IIIIII
IIIIIIIIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION I: General Assumptions and Objectives ofthe Young Offenders Act
4
SECTION II: An Examiniation of the Working Assump- 14tions, Objectives, Possible Consequencesand Research Possibilities, related tothe Key Legislative Foci of the YoungOffenders Act
SECTION III: Research Themes and Projects:A Proposed Research Strategy
89
APPENDIX I: Ad Hoc Young Offenders Implementation iCommittee (Participants in Preparationof a Research Strategy)
APPENDIX II: Documents used to DelineateAssumptions
APPENDIX III: Research Pcssibilities byLegislative Focus
(Statistical Reference Package Appended)
ii
iii
I
J.
If it is passed by Parliament*, The Young Offenders
Act would - represent the culmination of a long and difficult
process of finding a suitable replacement for the Juvenile
Delinquents Act. Since the Department of Justice Committee
on Juvenile Delinquency made its recommendations in 1965,
several legislative drafts (including a Bill which died on
the Order Paper in 1970) have been prepared. The Young
Offenders Act itself was preceded by the "Young Persons in
Conflict with the Law" proposal (1975), and varies signi-
ficantly from it.
It is suggested that a major reason for the difficul-
ties experienced in preparing new legislation has been a
notable lack of literature and information concerning the
operational function of the juvenile justice system across
the country. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was created mostly
at the hands of social reformers outside the Federal Govern-
ment who needed enabling legislation to implement their
vision of the juvenile court. They were not concerned with
the development of a capacity to monitor and evaluate the
administration of the juvenile justice system at a Federal
level. Such a capacity has not been developed, to any
comprehensive extent, since that time.
The Young Offenders Act, on the other hand, has been
created in a much different manner. Its development has been
primarily motivated by government personnel, who have concerned
themselves with creating legislation which reflects an
"objective" assessment of the current operational conditions
* At the time this report was completed no date for intro-ducing the new Act to Parliament had been set. In fact, the entire question of whether or not there was to be a new Act resurfaced during the final weeks of preparing this report, taking away from the sense of immediacy and relevance which originally accompanied it.
2
IIII1IIIIIIIII
and needs of the juvenile justice system. This assessment
has been accomplished primarily through consulting the opinions
of juvenile justice personnel and Provincial administrators.
The new Act is also accompanied with budgetary allocation
which gives support to a co-ordinated pursuit of information
and research which will serve to monitor and evaluate the
changes brought forward by it.
This report attempts to develop a base for a legisla-
tively focussed research strategy. Considerable attention
is given to extrâpolating the key assumptions, objectives
and possible consequences of the proposed new Act, before
identifying research themes or projects which would be
relevant to future policy evaluation and development in the
area of juvenile justice.
Section I examines the general assumptions and objectives
of the proposed new Act, specifically those which can be
identified as overall philosophical themes and intended
consequences.
Section II contains a lengthier and more detailed
examination of the new Act, according to fifteen "legislative
foci", (age jurisdiction, offence jurisdiction, sentencing,
legal rights and due process, parental involvement, parti-
cipation of young persons, special procedural safeguards,
limiting State intervention, screening and diversion, reviews,
detentions, privacy and publicity of trials, transfer to adult
court, fingerprinting and photographing, and Youth Court
records). Attention is given to the working assumptions,
objectives, ( i.e. intended consequences), possible consequences,
and apparent research possibilities which can be identified for
each legislative focus. Further discussion of the meaning
of these terms and the methodology used for identifying them
can be found in the introduction to Section II.
Section III represents an attempt to translate all the
"research possibilities" identified in the previous section,
I
into research themes and projects which are workable and
able to be operationalized within the mandates of the agencies
which will take part in the fulfillment of a juvenile justice
research strategy.
I
1I1IiIt1I
I1II
SECTION I
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND OBJECTIVES
OF THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
I
11I11II1r1IIII
II
4
INTRODUCTION
The changes brought forward by the Young Offenders
Act have been framed by a new set of philosophical ideas
and political imperatives. This section attempts to
identify these, and to identify the general policy objectives
which flow from them.
Two types of general assumptions are discussed. The
first are ideological assumptions, those dealing with
conceptualizations of human nature and the role of the State.
The second are institutional assumptions, those which refer
to the purpose and function of the juvenile justice system.
To complete this section, the previously identified
general assumptions are translated into general policy
objectives of the new Act.
I
IDEOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS
Ideological assumptions have concerned many authors who
have written on the subjects of criminology and the sociology
of law. Historical analyses have been completed which have
identified several theoretical frameworks for understanding
crime, each with its own ideological assumptions. Examples
would include the classictal, pSfetivist, and radical theories
of crime and their innumerable derivatives.
Basically, ideological assumptions refer to concep-
tualizations of human nature and the social order. They are
the lenses through which we view the world. Because they
address metaphysical and political issues, they are charac-
terized by their abstract and subjective nature. They do,
however, provide the fundamental basis for understanding
the philosophies behind a particular law.
Key ideological assumptions behind the Young Offenders
Act concern the allocation of responsibility for the criminal
behaviour of young people, and the role and responsibility
of the State in responding to such behaviour.
Responsibility for Criminal Behaviour
Although neither the Juvenile Delinquents Act nor
the Young Offenders Act are accompanied by a detailed
analysis of the causes of juvenile crime, certain points
in their regard can be drawn from both Acts.
Both Acts, for example, show evidence of a recogni-
tion that environmental factors serve a role in determining
the behavioural patterns of young people. It is well
documented that the individuals who were the main advocates
6
II
I11It1II
1I1I1,I
of the Juvenile Delinquents Act were almost obsessively
concerned with certain environmental conditions which they
felt led directly to juvenile delinquency. Poor moral and
spiritual training, deficient family life, the "evils"
associated with industrialization and urbanization, and the
influence of adult criminals on children placed in non-segre-
gated institutions all served, it was believed, to lead
young people to a life of crime.
In the introductory remarks of the Young Persons in
Conflict with the Law proposals we find the most detailed
"analysis" of the causes of juvenile crime. Environmental
pressures on young people such as... "rapid technological
advancements and the spread of urbanization", "impersonal
organizations and bureaucracies", "no guarantee to a meaning-
ful place in a labour market characterized by unemployment",
are cited as causing "disillusionment" amongst young people.
The disillusionment and frustration caused young people by
our "complex and changing society" is seen to lead to
behaviour which may "conflict with the law."
A crucial difference, however, in the ideological
assumptions of the Young Offenders Act lies in respect to
who should be held responsible for a young persons behaviour.
The Juvenile Delinquents Act implied that a child's behaviour
was exclusively determined by his/her environment. Logically,
therefore, children could not be held responsible. The
Young Offenders ^ct gives a similar recognition to enviror.mer.tal
determ:i.nants, but implies that young people have... "the
capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their
illegal behaviour", and therefore, can be held responsible.
This ideological assumption can be stated as follows:
1
Social and environmental conditions can produce conflict between the values and morals of society at large and those of young people. Individual behavioural acts by young people (age 12 to 18 years) in response to these conditions, however, must be regarded as the responsibility of the young people themselves.
The Role and Responsibility of the State
The Juvenile Delinquents Act complies with the basic tenets of the "parens patriae" approach to juvenile justice. This implied that the State had a "parental" responsibility
for those children who were not receiving proper socialization
from traditional sources, je. the family. State intervention
in the lives of children was seen to be in their best
interests, which were synonomous with the best interests of the community and society at large.
The Young Offenders Act does not reflect an assumption
that State intervention in the lives of young people who have committed criminal acts is necessarily, under all
circumstances, in the young persons best interests. The
needs of young people are not to be ignored, but the prime
responsibility of the State under the new Act is seen to be
the "protection of society". While young people are expected
to take.responsibility for their illegal behaviour, the
State is being allocated the responsibility for the protection
of society from such behaviour.
The ideological assumption concerning the role and
responsibility of the State can be expressed as follows:
The social order is to be valued and protected. The criminal behaviour of young people threatens the social order. Therefore, the State must take responsibility to respond to such behaviour
in a manner which best affords protection to the maintenance of social order, giving due recog-nition to the legal rights and individual needs of young people.
INSTITUTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS
Policy makers work within an institutional context.
Certain operational assumptions are therefore pre-determined
in the course of formulating a new law. A new • law must reflect
the interests, values and assumptions of a selected range of
groups. It also must be developed in a manner which recognizes
the need for consultation and approval, at both formal and
informa], political levels. New laws must to a large extent
be a manifestation of dominant interest structures and poli-
tical mechanisms.
Institutional assumptions may contain ideological
implications. We will, however, restrict our definition to
those assumptions implied by the Young Offenders Act which
deal specifically with the clientele of the juvenile justice
system, the mandate of the juvenile court and the treatment
of young people.
Clientele of Juvenile Justice System
A characteristic of the "parens patriae" approach to
juvenile justice is that very little distinction is drawn
between dependent, neglected and delinquent children. All
"troubled" children were seen to be basically the same and
effectively dealt with in similar ways. Children in trouble
were seen to be children in need - the prime need being
protection from the environmental factors negatively
9
1ItI1t11^11
1IIrI
influencing their socialization.
A recent trend in juvenile justice philosophy, and
one reflected in the Young Offenders Act, is to draw a much
clearer distinction between those children who are dependent
or neglected and those who commit criminal acts. The
philosophical bas*s on which these children are dealt with
are being separated in order that the former category may
receive protection from their social environment, while the
latter are dealt with in a manner which will best serve to
protect their social environment from them.
This trend can be noted in the Young Offenders Act
with its emphasis on the protection of society, and with its
move toward limiting the jurisdiction of the Act. The
assumption behind this can be stated as follows:
Young people who commit criminal acts shouldbe dealt with separately and differently fromthose who aredependent or neglected.. It is,therefore, necessary to limit the jurisdictionof the juvenile justice system, and to deal withthose young people who fall within its juris-diction in a manner which recognizes the pro-tection of society as its primary operationalprinciple.
The Mandate of the Juvenile Court
The original mandate given to the juvenile court under
the Juvenile Delinquents Act was to serve, in whatever manner
deemed necessary, the best interests of the children who
came before it.
The court was to act as a "social clinic" concerned with
the assessment and fulfillment of the needs of its clients,
as opposed to a criminal court concerned with due process and
the protection of society. In conjunction with the recognition
I
10
of the responsibility of young people for their illegal behaviour,
and the recognition of the need to protect society from such
behaviour, the Young Offenders Act allocates a fundamentally
different mandate to the "Youth Court".
Under the new Act, the court will not be required to
give a diagnosis of the "condition" of the young person, but
rather, an adjudiciation of the guilt or innocence of a young
person in respect to a particular offence. The court will
also be required to respect much more rigorously procedural
mechanisms to ensure that the rights of the young person are
upheld and to give recognition to the individual needs of
young persons. The different mandate being allocated the
Youth Court is based on the assumption that:
The Youth Court should be a criminal court, and as such should operate on an "offence basis, under rigorous procedural guidelines" which serve to protect the rights of its clients.
The Youth Court should differ from an adult criminal court, however, by giving recognition to the special developmental needs of young people, and by holding young people responsi-ble but less accountable for their behaviour than adults.
Treatment of Juveniles
Both the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young
Offenders Act reflect certain assumptions with regard to the
"proper" handling of juveni3eswho commit violations of
the law. Certain of these assumptions are contained in both
Acts. For example, both Acts support the view that juvenile
offenders should be handled separately from adult offenders.
Both Acts also, in their own way, show support for the notion
11
II1
111I111II
that treatment, if at all possible should occur in the home
or community context of the juvenile, and that a young person
should only be removed from these settings under exceptional
circumstances.
The Young Offenders Act does, however, depart from
and expand on, some of the assumptions of its predecessor. The
new Act gives recognition to the fact that State intervention
in the life of a young person, at least in regard to the
juvenile justice process, is a serious matter which can have
certain negative effects on the life of the young person.
For this reason, the juvenile justice system is to be avoided
where other "legal" or "social means" may be available.
The Preamble emphasizes the right of a young person to...
"the least interference with freedom having regard to the
protection of society, the needs of young persons, and the
interests of their families:'
The provisions for limiting the jurisdiction of the
legislation and those which formally recognize and endorse
the practice of screening and diversion also are based, at
least in part, on the assumption that the formal procedures
of criminal law should be applied to young people with reluctance.
A further assumption relating to the proper treatment
of young-offenders under criminal law is that they should
be treated on the basis of the offence(s) committed. This
lies in contraste to the Juvenile Delinquents Act which
blurred distinctions among offences by categorizing all
juveniles who had been found delinquent, whatever the nature
of the offence, as being in the same "condition". While the
Juvenile Delinquents Act emphasized the needs of the child
and his treatment as the predominant criteria, the Young
Offenders Act will give much more emphasis to the nature and
circumstance surrounding the actual offence(s) committed,
in deciding upon an appropriate disposition, bearing in mind
that the protection of society is the prime objective.
12
Although it would not be correct .to suggest that the
Young Offenders Act reflects an assumption that "punishment"
is the only proper response to the criminal behaviour of young
people, it would be correct to suggest that the concept of
"corresponding" penalty is much more clearly reflected in
the new Act than it was in the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Evidence of this can be found in the new Act with its support
for determinate and compensatory dispositions. An overall
assumption of the new Act concerning the proper treatment of
young people can be expressed as follows:
The proper handling of young people demands that their right to least interference of freedom be respected and that State intervention by mes of the formal procedures of the juvenile justice system be avoided where other social or legal control systems could be used. When circumstances arise whereby young people are dealt with: a) separately from adults, b) in a manner which gives due recognition and corresponds to the nature and seriousness of the offence committed c) in a manner which allows a young person to remain in his/her home and community wherever possible.
GENERAL POLICY OBJECTIVES
The assumptions identified above provide the basis
for understanding the overall philosophical themes of the
Young Offenders Act. Each objective of the new Act is meant
in some way to bring about an adjustment in the juvenile
justice system which relates to its new philosophical orienta-
tion. The working assumptions and objectives which apply
to specific provisions of the new Act are identified in the
next section. However, before dealing with specific provisions
13
IIr
111rIIIIIIII
it may be useful to identify what appear to be the two overall
objectives which flow from the new philosophical base.
The first general objective relates to re-defining
the legal status of the non-adult. This redefinition is
symbolically represented in the change of terminology
used to describe the client of the juvenile justice system,
from "child" to "young person". This change stems primarily
from the philosophy that young people have the capacity to
understand the nature and consequences of their illegal
behaviour, and should therefore, be held responsible for
such behaviour. It is reflected in provisions which change
the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system, which
change procedures in order to recognize the accountability
of young persons (plea-taking for example), and provisions
which give new emphasis to the actual offence(s) committed.
The second general objective relates to re-defining
the relationship between a young offender and the State.
This stems from a change in operational principles from a
"paternalistic" model to a model which gives the State, as a
first priority, responsibility for the protection of society.
Provisions which deal with the formalization of procedures,
the recognition and provision of rights and legal safeguards,
and the limitations of discretionary powers are intended to
fulfill this general objective.
I
II
SECTION II
iI1iIIIIII11I
AN EXAMINATION OF THE WORKING
ASSUMPTIONS, OBJECTIVES, POSSIBLE
CONSEQUENCES, AND RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
RELATED TO THE KEY LEGISLATIVE FOCI OF
THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
I
I14
INTRODUCTION
1
IrI1IIIII1I
This section identifies each of the major reform initiatives
of the Young Offenders Act. Provided for each of these "legislative
foci" is a list of those "working" assumptions which appear to give
a basis to the proposed reform, drawn directly from the new Act
and related documents. Appendix II lists those documents used by
the author to "uncover" these assumptions. It also provides the
code used in this section when reference to these documents are
made.
Following the list of assumptions, the objectives of each
reform are articulated. The objectives can be defined as the
"intended consequences" of the new Act, and should be regarded as
the key evaluative measurements of the implementation of the new
Act.
The development of a legislatively focussed research strategy
should be preceded not only with a recognition of the intended
consequences of the legislation. Attention must also be given to
other "possible consequences". Therefore, following the listing of
objectives, a multi-dimensional, speculative analysis of-the
possible consequences of each reform is provided. Possible con-
sequences are examined under each of the following categcries:
a) General
b) Young Persons
c) Parents
d) The Community
e) The Police
f) Provincial Government and Services
I
15
g) The Youth Court
h) Federal Government and Services
To enhance the reader's understanding of some of the con-
sequences discussed, a "Statistical Reference Package" is appended
to the report.
To conclude the examintation of each legislative focus of
the new Act, a listing of research possibilities is given. These
research possibilities are used in the next and final section to
further concretize a proposed research strategy and are relisted in
Appendix III, in order to facilitate reference.
16
IIII1III1^ItIIIII
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - AGE JURISDICTION
ASSUMPTIONS
As discussed in the previous section, a general policy
objective of the Young Offenders Act relates to re-defining the
legal status of the non-adult. The new Act identifies a young
person as a new and separate legal category of people who are
neither children nor adults. This change is based on the assump-
tion that there is a special age group in society who have the capacity
to understand the nature and consequences of illegal behaviour,
but because of their limited development and maturity, should be
dealt with separately from adults in a manner which recognizes
their special needs and in a manner which does not hold them as
accountable for their behaviour as adults.
- "Young persons who commit offences should bearresponsibility for their contraventions...(but) should not in all instances be heldaccountable in the same manner and suffer thesame consequences for their behaviour asadults." (FWG Proposals)
The actual identification of this special age group
has come about through the setting of new minimum and maximum. age of
applicability for the juvenile justice system. The setting of
each of these ages has been accompanied by a separate set of
assumptions.
The current minimum age of criminal responsibility is set
at 7 years (under the Criminal Code). The assumption that this
minimum age standard could not apply to a philosophy that recognizes
capacity to understand and be responsible for illegal acts
I
17
1
III
1rI1IIIIIII
has held throughout the preparation of the new Act. As well,
it has been assumed that very few juveniles in the younger age
range (i.e. 7 - 12 years) are currently appearing in juvenile
courts and that the minimum age should be raised as a reflection
of these practices.
"Children below the age of 14 (revised to 12)
should not come under the jurisdiction ofcriminal legislation, but would be more ap-
propriately looked after under the provisionof provincial child welfare, youth protection,and juvenile correctional legislation."(YPCL)
Early documents stressed the importance and necessity to
bring uniformity to the maximum age of juvenile justice jurisdiction
applied in the provinces.
"It should no longer be the case that, bystepping over a provincial boundary, ayoung person might automatically change hisor her status from that of a young person
to be dealt with by special legislation to thatof an adult". (YpCL)
This position was not accepted in recognition of the non-
feasibility of implementing uniformity at this time by means of
federal legislation. A new Federal standard of 18 years is put
forward however, and the "spirit" of the legislation is such that
18 years should eventually become the standard for all provinces.
The new legislation... "provides the potential for the
adoption of uniform ages of application at ages 12 and 18, on the
basis of provincial determiniation". (Cab. Doc. Y.J.A.)
I
18
OBJECTIVES
- To identify a new age range for the jurisdiction of
the juvenile justice system which complies with the philosophy that
the system should be restricted to those young people who have the
capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their illegal
behaviour but who cannot be held accountable to the same degree as
adults.
- To exclude all "children" (apparently or actually under
the age of 12 years) from the jurisdiction of Federal juvenile justice
legislation.
- To set a new Federal standard for the maximum age of
juvenile justice jurisdiction at 18 years, and to encourage the
eventual compliance of all Provinces to this standard.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- approximately 6% of the current clientele of
juvenile courts will no longer come under the jurisdiction of
Federal juvenile justice legislation as a result of raising the
minimum age. (S.R. p. 2)
- approximately 11% of the juveniles currently dealt
with by the police will no longer be eligible to be charged under
Federal juvenile justice legislation (S.R. p. 7 & 8)
- an increase in the maximum age of juvenile justice
jurisdiction to 18 years for any province where it is presently
19
set at 16 years would result in a substantially increased clientele
for the Youth Courts (estimated 100% increase).
- an estimated 300 - 500 adults per year currently
dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act for "contributing
to delinquency" will be excluded from Federal juvenile justice
legislation. (S.R 0 p.10)
b) Young Persons
- "children" under the age of 12 years who commit criminal
offences will become involved with other "control" systems. These
systems may not necessarily offer the saine legal protections or
resources which would be available within the juvenile justice
system.
- "children" under the age of 12 years may, because they
are immune to criminal prosecution, be used more frequently as
accessories to the criminal activity of young people and adults.
- raising the maximum age of juvenile justice jurisdiction
may result in significant changes in the manner the affected age
group is responded to (e.g. charge and diversion rates, access to
legal services, sentencing patterns, etc.)
c) Parents
- N/A
d) The Community
- N/A
e) The Police
- the police may experience some difficulties and
frustrations in dealing with "children" who commit criminal offences.
- certain, changes in police practices may occur as
a result of the new philosophy of "responsibility and accountability",
and as a result of a perceived change in the way in which young
20
III
II1IIIII1I
people are to be dealt with in Youth Court.
f) Provincial Government & Services
- provincial legislation may be changed in order to
provide some measures to deal with children who commit criminal
offences.
- certain provinces may take some action to comply with
the new Federal maximum age standard.
g) The Youth Court
- the exclusion of children under the age of 12 years
will have some minimal impact on the caseloads of Youth Courts.
- Youth Court caseloads would substantially increase
within any province where the maximum age of jurisdiction is raised.
- Youth Courts will no longer have jurisdiction over
adults who "contribute" to the criminal activities of young people.
h) Federal Government & Services
- the Criminal Code may have to be amended in order to
ensure that adults who are currently prosecuted under the Juvenile
Delinquents Act can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code and dealt
with in the adult criminal justice system.
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the way in which children who ccmmit
criminal offences are dealt with (including changes to Provincial
legislation, police practices, treatment programs, legal safe-
guards, etc.)
I
21
II
IIIIIIIIIIIII
2. Comparing and evaluating different approaches to dealing with
16-18 year olds (i.e. within the juvenile justice system or
the adult justice system).
3. Examining the psychological capacities of young people to
understand the nature and consequences of illegal behaviour.
4. identifying treatment models which hold young persons respon-
sible and accountable for their behaviour while recognizing
their limited maturity and development.
5. Examining the effects of holding young persons responsible
and accountable for their behaviour on such things as label-
ling, deterrence, recidivism, and on young person's perceptions
of the criminal justice system.
6. Monitoring and evaluating the effect of eliminating the offence
of "contributing to delinquency" and excluding adults from
the jurisdiction of the Youth Court.
I
22
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - OFFENCE JURISDICTION
ASSUMPTIONS
The Young Offenders Act reflects the assumption that
criminal law should not be different for young people and adults
in terms of the types of behaviour it applies to. The Juvenile
Delinquents Act's applicability to 'non-criminal' behaviour (status
offences) as well as to offences which were not legislated by
the Federal Parliament, has been viewed as an overextension of the
purpose of criminal law and quite possibly the constitutional
authority of the Federal Parliament under the British North America
Act. As well, it has been assumed that juvenile justice legisla-
tion should not be extended to apply to adults who are alleged to
have influenced or contributed to juvenile crime.
- "Young persons are being unnecessarily criminalized for behaviour which would not be an offence in the case of an adult." (YPCL)
Federal criminal legislation should have... "exclusive jurisdiction over federal offences only". (YPCL)
- "neither the proposed legislation nor the Youth Court are appropriate vehicles to deal with adults who commit offences in relation to young persons." (YPCL)
OBJECTIVES
- To exclude all young persons who have committed offences
against provincial or municipal laws, or who have behavioural control
23
II
IItIII1IIIIIII
problems apart from law-breaking (status offenders), from the
jurisdiction of Federal juvenile justice legislation.
- To fully exclude adults from the jurisdiction of Federal
juvenile justice legislation.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- Provincial Statute offences (including liquor
offences, traffic violations, truancy, etc.) are currently record-
ed as the reason for police and court intervention for approximate-
ly 15-25% of the juveniles in conflict with the law. (S.R. p. 2,
3,4, 5,11,12,13,17)
- Municipal By-Law offences are currently recorded
as the reason for police and court intervention for approximately
.5 - 1.5% of the juveniles in conflict with the law. (S.R. p. 2,
3, 4, 5,11,12,14)
- the exclusion of these offence categories from the
jurisdiction of Federal legislation implies that each Province
will have to take some legislative'action in order to ensure that
procedures will be available to prosecute young people who commit
these types of offences. Exactly what is going to occur in this
regard is not known. A Province may choose to use for certain
offences (traffic violations for e.g.) the same procedures and
facilities for both adults and young people. For other offences
(liquor for e.g.) a Province may choose to prosecute young people
in Youth Court under current Liquor Control Acts. And finally,
I
II
1tIIIIIItIII
24
for some offences (status offences for e.g.) Provincial child
welfare legislation is likely to be used.
b) Young Persons
- Because young persons who commit offences against
Provincial Statutes or Municipal By-Laws will no longer be charged
under Federal criminal legislation, the procedures, facilities,
resources and perhaps even the sentences used in response to this
behaviour may be significantly different than current practices.
c) Parents
- parental responsibility and participation in proceed-
ings against young persons who commit Provincial Statute or munici-
pal By-Law offences may change, depending on Provincial legislation.
d) The Community
- Municipalities will have to turn to Provincial leg-
islation in order to ensure that procedures and facilities are
available to deal with certain offences (e.g. curfew laws, tres-
passing, etc.)
e) The Police
- certain administrative changes may be necessitated
by the possible use of different procedures and facilities for the
Provincial Statute or municipal By-Law offences of young people.
This in turn could affect the pre-charge diversion rates for
these offences.
f) Provincial Government & Service
- each Provincial C,overnment will have to assess the
situation in terms of how the offences of young people against
I
25
Provincial Statutes or Municipal By-Laws will be dealt with.
(see General consequences)
g) The Youth Court
- Youth courts will experience a decrease in caseload
in proportion to the use of adult courts for dealing with young
people who commit Provincial Statute or Municipal By-Law offences.
h) Federal Government & Services
- N/A
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effect of excluding Provincial
Statute and Municipal By-Law offences from the jurisdiction of
Federal juvenile justice legislation, including:
a) The Provincial Legislative response
b) The response of Municipal governments
c) The effect on the Youth Court (pro-cedures, caseloads, etc.)
d) The effect of the change on young persons (in particular the changes evidenced in sentencing patterns and service delivery to young persons).
e) Changes initiated and difficulties ex-perienced by the police.
f) Inter-provincial disparities.
2. Monitoring the extent to which there is a concomitant change
in the number of young persons being criminalized.
3. Effects on attitudes and future behaviour of young persons
because of change in law.
26
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - SENTENCING (DISPOSITIONS)
ASSUMPTIONS
Most of the key assumptions of the Young Offenders Act
are contained in the provisions related to sentencing. Disposi-
tional options have been changed and amended in a manner meant
to comply more closely with the objective of social defense (pro-
tection of society). This objective, it is assumed, is best
fulfilled when young people are given dispositions which hold
them responsible and accountable for their behaviour (recognizing
the rights of victims where possible), while at the same time
recognize their special developmental needs.
The dispositional options of the Y.O.A. also reflect the
general objective of protecting the rights and interests of
young people. This objective, it is assumed, is best fulfilled
when young people are given dispositions which are definite in
nature and determinate in length, and when discretionary authority
over the young person is limited.
Two sets of working assumptions in respect to sentencing
can, therefore, be noted. The first relates to the actual dis-
positional options provided, the second relates to the manner
in which dispositions are to be served.
It is assumed that the authority of the judge to order
indefinite suspensions and adjournments under the Juvenile Delin-
quents Act, works against the new philosophy of the Y.O.A.
- "the power of a juvenile court judge to suspend final disposition indefinitely or to adjourn proceedings for an indefinite period of time should not be continued". (YPCL)
It is also assumed that "compensatory dispositions" such
as fines, restoration, restitution, personal and community service
27
I
IIIIIIII
IIIII
orders, can be used effectively in holding a young person respon-
sible and accountable for illegal behaviour and can serve to pro-
tect the rights of victims.
"a fine remains a valid disposition in appropriatecircumstances where it is determined that a youngperson has the capacity to pay the fine". (YPCL)
"dispositions available in the Juvenile DelinquentsAct do not adequately provide for a young person inappropriate instances to compensate the victim, orperform a community service." (YPCL)
Finally, the dispositional options of the Y.O.A. also give
recognition to the assumption that court appearances and compensa-
tory dispositions are not sufficient to effectively protect society
and provide for the special needs of young persons in all instances.
Dispositional options of probation and continuous.or intermittent
custody are also provided to allow for those cases where further
control and supervision of the young person is called for.
In reference to the manner in which dispositions are to be
served, the Young Offenders Act begins with the important assump-
tion that dispositions should be determinate in nature.
"a specific maximum limit (should) be placed onthe possible length of a disposition... andeach disposition (should be) in force for aspecified length of time as stipulated by theYouth Court judge." (YPCL)
The new Act would also reduce the scope of authority presently
vested in provincial service administrators under the Juvenile
Delinquents Act. It is assumed that the judiciary is the body which
I
II
I
II
I IIIIIIIIIII
28
should decide the extent to which custodial and other measures
should be utilized to ensure the protection of society. it is
also assumed, however, that considerable flexibility should be
allowed the provinces in designating places and facilities of
custody, in order to ensure the implementation of effective treat-
ment programs.
- "young persons should remain under the juris-
diction of the new legislation following their
dispositions . " (YPCL)
OBJECTIVES
- To provide for an absolute discharge for those cases
where it is deemed that a court appearance in and of itself has
resulted in a sufficient handling of an offence, and to discon-
tinue any use of indefinite adjournments or suspensions, or any
conditional discharges as dispositional options.
- To increase the use of compensatory dispositions as a
means of holding young persons responsible and accountable for their
behaviour as well as recognizing the protecting the rights of
victims.
- To allow for probationary supervision, and continuous
or intermittant custody in those instances where the protection
of society and the needs of young persons require the control and
supervision of the young person.
- To set a fixed period of time (not to exceed 2 years) on
dispositions involving probation or custody.
I
29
- To place ultimate authority for determining and
monitoring the nature and conditions of a disposition with the
Youth Court, while allowing for provincial discretion in designating
places and facilities of custody.
- To increase the perception among young persons that
they are responsible and will be held accountable for their illegal
behaviour, thereby increasing the deterrent effect of the juvenile
justice system and lowering the incidence of re-entry into the
system.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- some of the most frequently used dispositions under
the Juvenile Delinquents Act (for e.g. 'adjournment sine die' &
'suspended disposition' which are used in approximately one third
of the cases) will no longer be available to the Youth Court Judges
under the Young offenders Act. (S.R. p.18)
- the new Act encourages the use of "compensatory"
dispositions (presently used for approximately 15% of dispositions).
This will theoretically create certain pressures to use these
types of dispositions more frequently, as well as to develop new
programs of this nature. (i.e. restitution programs, community
service orders, etc.)
- the move toward determinate dispositions and the
continued jurisdiction of the Youth Court over young people during
post-dispositional stages, will result in a shifting of control
Over the length of probation and custody dispositions from
provincial service directors to Youth Court fudges and may therefore
result in a substantive difference in the length of time served by
young persons in these types of dispositions.
1
I1IIIIt1III
I
30
b) Young Persons
- the types of dispositions given to young people
will change to some degree.
- young people will be more aware of the length of
time they will be expected to serve for probation & custody disposi-
tions.
- the use of compensatory dispositions may make young
persons more aware of the consequences for others of their actions
and may consequently affect their future behaviour.
c) Parents
- parents may become more aware of what is expected
of young people who have received dispositions from the Youth Court.
d) The Community
- victims of the offences of young people may receive
more compensation and become more involved in the dispositional
plans set out for young people.
- an increased use of community service orders may
result in certain benefits to communities as well as a general
increase in community involvement and awareness of the juvenile
justice system. Certain problems, however, such as conflicting
interests with unions, quality of "workmanship", legal liabilities
etc. may also result from an increased use of community service
orders.
- in a general sense, since the dispositional
options of the Young Offenders Act are meant to better protect
society by holding young persons responsible and accountable for
their behaviour, communities would experience benefit proportion-
ate to the success of this approach.
I
31
e) The Police
- given that the police are influenced somewhat in
their decision-making by their perceptions of what will happen
to a young person in court if he/she is charged, it could be expected
that if sentencing patterns change significantly, so might police
charge rates for various types of offences and offenders.
f) Provincial Government & Services
- program funding priorities may change as a result
of the increased emphasis on compensatory dispositions.
- the use and role of probationary supervision may
be affected by a change in sentencing patterns. For example,
probation officers may be given responsibility for the supervision
of a community service order.
- custody programs may be altered as a result of
definite sentencing. For example, point systems currently used
in some institutions which allow a young person to "earn" his/her
release may no longer be applicable if release date is pre-
established.
- provincial service directors may experience admin-
istrative and control difficulties as a result of losing the
authority or "'wardship" of a young person during post-dispositional
stages.
g) The Youth Court
- judges may experience some difficulties in moving
to definite sentencing. For example, judges who have frequently
used "adjournment sine die" or "suspended disposition" as dispcsi-
tional options may feel the need for further sentencing guidelines
in establishing what the appropriate disposition for these types
of cases should be under the Young Offenders Act.
32
- judges may feel that the available services do not
adequately comply with the dispositional options of the new Act.
For example, the lack of supervisory personnel or established
community service possibilities may deter from the desired use
of restitution or community service orders.
h) Federal Government & Services
- the Federal Government will take a more proactive
role in both educating juvenile justice personnel to the new
philosophy and provisions for sentencing contained in the Young
Offenders Act as well as developing and evaluating new dispositional
alternatives (through funding demonstration and evaluative research
projects).
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. An overall monitoring of sentencing patterns under the Young
offenders Act, including:
a) Types of dispositions used
b) Lengths of time served for probation and custody dispositions
c) The involvement of victims in dispositional agreements
d) Provincial disparities
2. Monitoring difficulties experienced and changes initiated by
the police, Youth Court judges, and provincial service admin-
istrators in complying with the new philosophy and sentencing
provisions of the Young offenders Act.
33
II
I'II.1I1II1tI1II
3. Encouraging the development of compensatory dispositional
options and evaluating the benefits, drawbacks, and admin-
istrative problems in using these types of dispositions,
4. Evaluating new dispositional options initiated at the local
level and developing more sophisticated methods of communica-
ting new ideas in this regard to other commlanities across
the country.
5. Evaluating the extent to which determinant dispositions
serve the objectives of social defense and limited intervention.
6. Monitoring the attitudes of young persons in respect to
dispositions received from the Youth Court (i.e. perceptions
of fairness, severity, etc.)
I
34
1II
II1IrII1IIII
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS
ASSUMPTIONS
A common theme in the preparation of new legislation has
been that the legal rights of children are not adequately or equally
recognized and enforced under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. As
well, in conjunction with the recognition of the potential "adversarial"
relationship which can exist between an alleged young offender and
the State, it is argued that young people need further legal
protections than those presently available, and that Youth Court
proceedings should more closely follow precepts of natural justice
and due process.
- "substantive and procedural safeguards for the
protection of young persons (are needed)". (U.N.)
- "it should be made absolutely clear that young
persons have the same rights as are recognized for
adults". (YPCL)
- "rights of children have been abridged in some
instances, because juvenile court judges have
employed varying interpretations of the most
appropriate way to conduct hearings and trials." (YPCL)
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.., "it remains unclear
as to what in fact applies and does not apply and in what instances
a (young) person has the right to retain and instruct counsel with-
out delay". (Compendium)
- "young persons have rights and freedoms including those
stated in the Canadian Bill of Rights, and in parti-
cular the right to be heard in the course of, and to
participate in, the processes that lead to decisions
that affect them as well as special guarantees of
these rights". (FWG Proposals)
t
35
1I11
II11IIIII1,
II
- "Young persons should be entitled to be represented
by a lawyer, not only at the trial, but at any stage
in the proceedings". (YPCL)
- "in the case of the majority of children who appear
in juvenile court, it appears they are not represented
by counsel". (Compendium)
- "young persons should have the right to retain and
instruct counsel as soon as they are detained, arrested,
or if they are summoned by the police... and should
be represented at trial by a lawyer, unless the judge
is satisfied that no lawyer is reasonably available".
(Cab. Doc. YJA)
- "leave to appeal should not be required but should be
as of right". (YpCL)
OBJECTIVES
- To emphasize and improve awareness of the fact that
young persons retain all the fundamental rights and liberties
similar to those of adults.
- To guarantee in law that young persons have the right to
retain and instruct legal counsel at all stages of proceedings
against them.
- To require that a young person enter a formal plea of
guilty or not guilty as an initial trial procedure.
I
36
- To give young persons the same rights of appeal as are
presently given adults.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- Much of the significance of the new Acts' emphasis
on the legal rights of young people is found in the philosophical
rather than substantive change this represents. Although certain
important substantive changes can be identified, many of the
fundamental rights recognized by the new Act (for e.g. those con-
tained in the Bill of Rights) currently exist. The open recognition
of these rights in the text of the new Act, however, implies that
certain changes in both practices and attitudes will result. The
guarantee of the right to retain and instruct counsel is an example.
Current legislation does not, in fact, deny this right. Neither,
however, is it stated clearly. It is the "spirit" of this provision
which gives it its importance and will primarily determine change of
practice in respect to legal counselling and representation.
- The emphasis on legal rights also serves as a rationale
for many of the other reforms of the new Act. (for e.g. provision
to limit discretionary authority and to formalize procedures). The
"due process" model of juvenile justice represented by the new Act
is, in fact, a model which is meant to encourage respect for the
"rights" of young people.
- a significant substantive change in respect to the legal
rights of young persons relates to the "right of appeal". (S.R.
p. 19)
37
b) Young Persons
- young persons may become more heavily involved with
and influenced by lawyers during proceedings against them.
- young persons should experience the increased awareness
of and respect for their rights on the part of the personnel of the
juvenile justice system. This should result in less confusion on
the part of young people, as well as, a general decrease in the sense
of injustice developed by them during their involvement with the
juvenile justice system.
c) Parents
- It is possible that parents will feel resentment
and less in control of those circumstances where a young person has
retained a legal counsellor who defends those interests of a young
person which may conflict with the interests of parents.
d) The Community
- N/A
e) The Police
- Police may resent an increased involvement of lawyers
during the proceedings against a young person.
f) Provincial Government & Services
- Provinces may feel increased pressures to provide
legal aid and counselling services for young people.
- An increase in the amount of appellate action would
increase the workload of Provincial Courts cf Appeal.
38
IIII1II1IIIItIIII
g) The Youth court
- the stricter procedural guidelines of the Young
Offenders Act may give the Youth Court a more "legalistic" and
technical atmosphere.
- an increased use of lawyers by young persons may
result in longer trials and more frequent remands.
h) Federal Government & Services
- certain responsibilities may fall to the Federal
government in providing educational and consultative services
with respect to the increased recognition of the legal rights of
young people.
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the use of defence counsel in the
juvenile justice system, including:
a) The quantity and quality of legal counselling
and representation given to young persons.
b) The attitudes of young persons, parents, police,judges, prosecutors, and lawyers themselves, onthe rights of young persons and on the use andeffectiveness of lawyers in the juvenile justicesystem.
c) The effects of lawyers on the juvenile justice
process (e.g. pleas, adjournments, time delays,
length of trials, sentencing patterns, etc.)
d) The ability of young persons to use lawyerseffectively.
2. Monitoring the implications of giving young persons the right
to appeal.
^
39
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT
1IIIItIIItIII1I
ASSUMPTIONS
The Preamble of the Young Offenders Act recognizes parental
responsibility for the care and supervision of their children.
The provisions of the new Act, therefore, include measures to improve
and ensure parental awareness and involvement in proceedings against
a young person.
- "Parents have a right to be informed of theState's intervention in the life of theirchild, as does a child have a right to havehis parents so informed." (YPCL)
- "the Youth Court judge should ensure, where
possible the attendance of parents at court."
(YPCL)
OBJECTIVES
- To formalize procedures in respect to the notification
of parents, relatives, or other responsible adults when a young
person has been detained, or issued an appearance notice or summons,
thereby ensuring parental awarenss of any action taken against a
young person under the Act.
- To ensure that whenever possible during trial proceedings
against a young person, a parent or adult relative is present in
court.
I
40
I
II1IIIIIIIIII
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- parental notification of juvenile court hearings are
compulsory under the Juvenile Delinquents Act (Section 10)o The
main differences found in the Young Offenders Act relate to the
formalization of notification procedures and the judicial power
to compel parental attendance by means of a court order.
b) Young Persons
- some young persons may feel that the notification of
their parents in respect to certain offences may be unnecessary and
a source of undue difficulty for both the young person and the
parent(s). In particular, young people over the age of 16 years who
are no longer living at home may develop resentment if their parents
are notified.
- parental attendance during trial proceedings may also
at times, have the effect of deterring a young person from revealing
certain relevant information about his/her case.
c) Parents
- the provisions of the new Act should have the effect
of ensuring parental awareAs of what is happening to young people
as well as encouraging their attendance during trial proceedings.
- parents who receive court orders to attend proceedings
may feel unjustly treated and implicated, particularly under
circumstances where the young person no longer lives at home.
d) The Community
N/A
I
41
e) The Police
- Certain administrative and procedural adjustments
may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the new
Act. For example, it may not be current practice for some depart-
ments to indicate in notifications that the ycung person or parent
has the right to retain a lawyer.
f) Provincial Government and Services
N/A
g) The Youth Court
- Certain administrative and procedural adjustments may
be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the new
Act. For example, written appearance notices may not be current
practice in those instances where oral contact has been made. Under
the new Act, written appearance notices are called for whether or
not oral notification has previously occured.
- judges may be reluctant to use court orders.to ensure
parental attendance.
h) Federal Government & Services
N/A
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring practices in respect to the notification of parents
used by the police and court administrators and the development
of guidelines for effective notification procedures.
42
2. Evaluating the effect of parental notification and attendance
on young people, particularly with regard to those circumstances
where the young person no longer lives at home.
3. Monitoring and evaluating parental satisfaction with the juvenile
justice system, including:
a) Their opinions of the treatment given both themselves and their son/daughter by the police, detention supervisors, court officers, judges, probation officers, social workers, custodial staff, etc.
b) Their sense of involvement and importance during the course of their son's/daughter's involvement with the juvenile justice system.
43
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - PARTICIPATION OF YOUNG PERSONS
IIIIIItIII1IIIII
ASSUMPTIONS
In conjunction with the assumption that young people should
be held responsible and accountable for their illegal behaviour, is
the assumption that they should also be given the opportunity to
participate as fully as possible in proceedings against them. This
move to increase and guarantee the participation of young people is
exemplified in a general sense by the emphasis given in the new Act
to the right of a young person to retain and instruct counsel.
There are, however, more specific procedural guarantees
and requirements provided for in the new Act which are also based
on the assumption that young persons should participate in proceed-
ings against them. These refer to allowing young persons access to
their Youth Court records (including pre-disposition reports and the
reported results of medical examiniations and psychological and
psychiatric assessments), allowing young persons access to review
procedures, and reauiring that young persons sign declarations
stating that the contents of any probation order have been explained
to and understood by the young person.
OBJECTIVES
- To encourage the participation of young persons in
proceedings against them by:
a) emphasizing the right of young persons toretain and instruct counsel
b) allowing young persons access to their YouthCourt records when such access is deemed notto be potentially seriously injurious to theyoung person.
I
44
ItII
IIIIIIIIIIII
c) allowing access to review procedures atthe instance of the young person subject tocertain eligibility criteria
d) requiring that young persons sign declarationsthat any probation order has been explained tothem and that it is understood by the youngperson.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- the basic thrust of the provisions to increase parti-
cipation of young persons is directed toward discontinuing the
ostensibly "passive" role ascribed to young people under the Juvenile
Delinquents Act. Increased participation follows from the philoso-
phical basis of the Young Offenders Act that young people should
be held responsible and accountable, they should also be given fuller
opportunities to protect their own interests.
b) Youna Persons
- to the extent that young persons are made aware of
their right to retain and instruct counsel, and to the extent legal
counsel is available (particularly through Legal Aid), young persons
will likely make more use of lawyers.
- to the extent that young persons are made aware of
their right of access to their Youth Court records, and to the extent
that judges do not consider such access "seriously injurious",
young persons will become involved in examining such records.
- to the extent that young persons are made aware of
their right to request a review of their disposition under certain
circumstances, and to the extent that they are given proper instruc-
tion as to how to put forward such a request, reviews will occur at the
instance of young persons.
I
45
- in general, young persons should feel a stronger sense
of involvement and control at all stages of proceedings including
post-dispositional stages, which may in turn lead to a greater
acceptance of responsibility on the part of the young person.
c) Parents
- in many cases parents may play an important advocacy role
in ensuring the "participation" of young person (for e.g. helping to
retain a lawyer).
d) The Community
N/A
e) The Police
- the question of police reaction to an increase use of
lawyers again arises. (see "Legal Rights and Due Process")
f) Provincial Government & Services
- the actual quantitative and qualitative level of legal
representation for young persons will depend in large measure on the
willingness of Provinces to maintain and expand subsidized legal
services. It is possible that pressures created by the "spirit" of
the Young Offenders Act will not of themselves counter current pressures
to "cutback" financial expenditures in this regard.
g) The Youth Court
- judges will take crucial responsibility for ensuring
that young persons are informed of their rights of participation
(including the right to retain counsel, have access to Youth Court
records and to post-dispositional review procedures). This may
under certain circumstances be difficult. For example, if a judge
46
III
1IIIIIItIIIII
feels that lawyers detract from the effectiveness of Youth Court
or if a judge gives a broad interpretation to what might be "sericusly
injurious" to a young person.
h) Federal Government & Services
N/A
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the participation of young persons in
the juvenile justice process, including:
a) The awareness of young persons to their rightsof participation
b) The extent to which young persons retain counselon their own initiative, and the extent to whichchoice of counsel is recognized as the youngperson's right.
c) The extent to which young persons requestaccess to their Youth Court records, theextent to which such requests are refused byYouth Court judges, and the effect of
access on young persons.
d) The extent to which young persons are aware
and properly informed as to their right to
request a post-dispositional review, as well
as, the extent to which such reviews are
initiated as the instance of young persons
(see 'Reviews').
e) Young persons perceptions of fairness oftreatment
2. Monitoring the difficulties experienced by police, judges and
provincial service administrators in recognizing and allowing the
I
47
participation of young persons, (through retaining their own
counsel, having access to Youth Court records and post-dispo-
sitional review procedures, etc.)
48
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - SPECIAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
ASSUMPTIONS
Although the Young Offenders Act promotes the idea that
young people should be held responsible and accountable for their
illegal behaviour, it also gives recognition to the special "state
of dependency and level of development and maturity" of young
persons. It is assumed that because of this condition young
people have special needs which require, among other things,
that procedural safeguards be incorporated in the legislation to
protect their interests.
Special procedural safeguards are provided in respect to
detention, privacy of trails, transfers to adult court, reviews,
fingerprinting and photographing, and youth court records. Each
of these items are examined as a separate legislative focus, later
in this section. Procedural safeguards are also provided in
respect to written statements, pre-disposition reports, adjournments,
medical and psychological examiniations and probation orders.
"no written statement given by a young person should
be received in court as evidence against him or her
unless the young person was afforded the opportunity
to be assisted by a lawyer, parent or friend at the
time of giving the statement". (YPCL)
"In all serious cases the judge's determiniation of
the disposition should be preceded by a case evalua-
in the form of a pre-dispositional study and a
report that will provide an individualized assessment
49
I
IIIItIIItIIIII
of the young person's circumstances and a
realistic appraisal of the capabilities of the
service resource available to the young person".
( YPCL )
"definite time periods (for adjournment) are required
to make certain that young persons will be dealt with
in the court without delay". (YPCL)
The Judge... "should be authorized to order a medical
psychological or psychiatric examiniation and report
when he has reason to believe the young person is
ill and the parents are either unable or unwilling to
provide their consent". (YPCL)
"conditions (for probation orders) should be flexible
and individually determined". (YPCL)
OBJECTIVES
- To give recognition to the special state of dependency
and level of development and maturity of young persons, by
providing special procedural safeguards throughout the juvenile
justice process.
- To protect young persons from the inequitable or
prejudicial taking of statements by allowing that written or oral
statements given by a young person to a police officer are admissable
in court only if the young person has been informed of the conse-
quences of making a statement, and been given the opportunity to
consult with a lawyer, parent, adult relative, or responsible
I
50
I
IIIIIIIIIIII
adult prior to doing so.
- To formalize procedures in respect to the preparation
of pre-disposition reports, and to make such reports available
(with certain judicial restrictions possible), to all the key
individuals involved with the young person, including the young
person, in order that an opportunity is available to respond to
and challenge such reports.
- To exclude any form of indefinite adjournment from the
dispositional options of the juvenile court judge, and to provide
separate provisions allowing for adjournments of proceedings for
definite time periods only (less than 8 days except with consent
of the Attorney General or his agent and the young person).
- To formally empower a judge to order a medical, psychological
or psychiatric examiniation of a young person, and to order that
the young person be held for a definite period to accomplish the
examination, in order that a judge may better comply with the
young persons needs in formulating a dispositional plan, or in
deciding if a young person may be better dealt with outside of the
juvenile justice system.
- To set mandatory and optional conditions for the contents
of probation orders and to formalize procedures in respect to the
issuance of such an order to a young persono
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- A distinguishing feature of the juvenile justice
system has traditionally been, and will continue to be under the
I
I51
I
IIIiIIEIIIIII
Young Offenders Act, that young people demand special attention to their
needs as well as special protection of their interests. A primary
difference, however, between the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the
Young Offenders Act is that where the J.D.A. sought to provide for
a young persons needs and'interests through informal procedural
mechanisms and broad discretionary powers, the Young Offenders Act
assumes that formal procedural safeguards and limited discretionary
powers are needed to best provide for a young persons needs and
interests. This means in general, that the Young Offenders Act
sets about to "tighten-up" the juvenile justice process by
putting forward minimum procedural standards where in many cases the
Juvenile Delinquents Act is silent.
Five examples of this are examined here (written statements,
pre-disposition reports, adjournments, medical examiniations and
probation orders). Other examples are examined separately elsewhere
in this section (detention, privacy of trials, transfers to adult
court, reviews, fingerprinting and photographing, and Youth Court
records).
b) Young Persons
- in general, young persons should experience to a
lesser degree a sense of arbitrariness in proceedings against them,
as well as, an increased understanding of what exactly is happening
to them throughout the juvenile justice process. This applies to:
i) written statements taken by the police, where
young persons are to be explained the conse-quences of making a statement, as well asgiven the opportunity to consult with a lawyer,parent, adult relative or responsible adultprior to doing so.
I
52
ii) pre-disposition reports, whereby young persons (as well as other individuals) will be given the opportunity to read, respond to, and challenge such reports.
iii) idjournments, which will be for a definite period of time
iv) probation orders, which will contain pre-deter-mined mandatory conditions, as well as, optional conditions established by the judge, but will also be signed by the young person after having read and understood the contents.
- young persons may tend to receive more pre-dispositional
"assessments" as a result of the judicial authority to order medical,
psychological or psychiatric examinations.
c) Parents
- parents should experience some benefit in having a
clearer' conceptualization of what exactly is happening to young
persons, as a result of the measures to formalize procedures.
d) The Community
N/A
e) The Police
- certain administrative and procedural adjustments may
be necessary to comply with the new provisions for taking statements.
f) Provincial Government & Services
- certain practices of provincial service directors may
have to be altered in order to comply with the provisions of the new
53
Act for the preparation of pre-disposition reports. As well, certain
other practices may be adjusted in recognition of the increased
availability of these reports.
- Provinces may be required to provide further medical,
psycholOgical and psychiatric assessment services for young persons.
g) The Youth Court
- judges will retain ultimate responsibility for
ensuring that proper procedures are being followed with respect
to the taking of statements by the police, and the preparation
of pre-disposition reports.
- judges will have discretion to determine whether or
not a young person should have access to pre-disposition reports,
and will be in an arbitrative position when the contents of such
reports are disputed.
- judges will no longer be able to order indefinite
adjournments.
- judges will have authority to order medical, psycholo-
gical or psychiatric assessments and to detain young persons for up
to 30 days in order to complete such assessments.
- certain conditions of probationary orders will become
mandatory while others will remain to be decided by the judge.
- formalization of procedures and increased availability
of pre-disposition reports may affect their content.
h) Federal Government & Services
N/A
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating changes in current practices which
result from the Young Offenders Act, including:
1t
I111I11III1II
54
a) The taking of statements by police
b) The preparation, use, contents, and availability ofpre-disposition reports
c) The use of adjournments and time delays causedby them
d) The use of judicial orders to initiate medicalpsychological, or psychiatric assessments
e) The contents of probation orders
2. To evaluate in a general sense, the extent to which the needs
and interests of young persons (and their parents) are provided
for and protected under the Young Offenders Act, with particular
concern for those areas where the legislation may need to be
"tightened up" or formalized further to fulfill this objective.
3o Evaluating the effect of procedural safeguards on perceptions and
behaviour of young persons and parents (e.g. sense of fairness,
sense of participation and control, etc.)
1
55
1
I1II1I1I1I
II
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - LIMITING STATE INTERVENTION
ASSUMPTIONS
The rights of a young person to "the least interference
with freedom, having regard to the protection of society, the needs
of the young persons, and the interests of their families" is stressed
in the Preamble of the Young Offenders Act. Further, it is stated
that "young persons should be removed from parental supervision
either partly or entirely only when all other measures that provide
for continuing parental supervision are inappropriate".
The new Act contains many provisions which can be viewed as
measures to limit unnecessary intervention in the lives of young
people and supportive of the treatment of young people in their
home and community whenever possible. These would include such
measures as the limitations placed on the jurisdiction of the Youth
Court, the encouragement of parental involvement in proceedings,
the encouragement of the use of alternative social and legal measures
for dealing with young people by the use of screening and diversion,
the "community-based" emphasis in the dispositional options, the
move to determinate sentencing, the provision for reviews of dis-
positions and appeals, and the encouragement for the use of legal
counsel by young persons in order to protect their interests.
OBJECTIVES
- To include a variety of provisions which will have the
effect of limiting unnecessary state intervention into the lives of
young persons, and discourage the removal of young persons from
their home and community environment.
56
1I
111L1I1IrIII
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- Certain measures contained in the new Act should have
the effect of decreasing the overall number of young people who
become involved in the juvenile justice system (for e.g. the changes
in age and offence jurisdiction). Other measures should have the
impact of decreasing and limiting the involvement of young persons
in the "formal" aspects of the juvenile justice process ( for e.g.
the use of screening and diversion). Still others, should encourage
deterrance from the unnecessary removal of young people from their
home and community environment (for e.g. determinate sentencing,
reviews, and an increased variety of "community-based" dispositional
options).
it is, however, difficult to predict exactly what the
overall effect of the Young Offenders Act will be, on the "workload"
of the juvenile justice system or on the amount and type of State
interveation which will accrue to young people as a result of these
reforms. For example, the increased use of screening and diversion
may not necessarily result in an overall decrease in State interven-
tion (expanding the "web of social control" is not an unknown result
of diversion programming). As well, determinate sentencing does not
necessarily mean shorter sentences (judges may for e.g. tend to
give longer sentences than would result if the length of sentence
was left to the discretion of service administrators). Finally,
the use of "community-based" dispositions depends only in part
on their emphasis in legislation. The actual availability of these
services will determine to a large extent the tendency to remove
young persons from their home and community environment.
57
b) Young Persons
- fewer nudbers of young people will be dealt with in
the juvenile justice system as a result of decreased scope in both
age and offence jurisdiction.
- fewer nudbers of young people may be dealt with in
the "formal" aspects of - the juvenile justice system as a result of
the increased emphasis on the use of screening and diversion practices.
- a larger portion of young offenders may become involved
in dispositional plans which allow them to remain in their home and
community.
- in general, young people should feel more informed as
to who is exercising authority over them and in particular, how long
that authority will apply.
c) Parents
- parents should also benefit by having more definite
knowledge as to who has authority over their son/daughter and how
long that authority will apply.
d) The Community
- more young people may become involved with dispositions
which are "community-based".
e) The Police
- the police will have to use provincial laws in order
to deal with those young people and offence categories which are
currently covered by the Juvenile Delinquents Act, but will be
excluded under the new Act (i.e. children under 12 years, and young
people who commit provincial or municipal offences).
58
- the police will play an extremely important role in
developing screening and diversion practices, and in general,
determining the use of formal procedures of the juvenile justice
system.
f) Provincial Government & Services
- provincial service administrators will have less
discretionary authority to establish the length of time a young
person will be involved in fulfilling the terms of a disposition.
- provincial service administrators will no longer be
given "wardship" of young persons in conjunction with a disposi-
tional agreement.
- Provinces will determine to a large degree, the
extent to which screening and diversion practices will be developed
(i.e. through legislation, prosecutorial policy as well as program
funding priorities).
g) l'he Youth court
- fewer young people should appear in Youth Court as a
result of the jurisdictional reforms of the new Act.
- judges will be responsible for providing a much more
definite dispositional response to young offenders.
- judges and Youth Court personnel will also play an
important role in the development of screening and diversion
practices, particularly at the post-charge, pre-trial stage of
procedure.
h) Federal Government & Services
- the Federal Government will play a significant role
in the development of innovative screening and diversion practices,
as well as, community-based sentencing alternatives.
59
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the extent of State intervention in
the lives of children and young persons, including:
a) Police contacts
h) The workloads of Youth Courts, Child Welfare Courts, and Adult Courts (where young people are appearing for certain offences).
c) The use of screening and diversion practices
d) The types of dispositions given to young persons
e) The length of time served by young persons in the fulfillment of dispositional agreements
f) Assessment of the extent to which there is a lesser degree of interference with freedom for juveniles than adults.
2. Monitoring the extent to which young persons and their parents
are aware of the implications of State involvement, in
particular an awarenss of who retains authority over the young
person, how long that authority applies and the requirements
of fulfilling a disposition.
3. -Determining criteria for assessing when young persons should
be removed from home and/Or community settings.
60
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - SCREENING AND DIVERSION
ASSUMPTIONS
A common assumption found throughout the documents
related to the Young Offenders Act is that the juvenile court is
currently receiving, and being used for, the resolution of cases
which should be dealt with by other "social or legal means". The
idea that the "formal" procedures of the juvenile justice system
should be invoked with reluctance is generally accepted. The issue
surrounding this assumption has been whether this reluctance should
be recognized through a formal legislated screening mechanism or
whether screening and diversion practices should simply be encouraged
and legitimated in legislation without specifying a formal mechanism.
The Young Offenders Act proposes the adoption of the latter strategy.
"legislative provision is required enabling the
screening of cases prior to court action over and
above the presently available and informal exercise
of discretion". (YPCL)
"the full force of the criminal law (should be)
restricted to offences which raise serious
public concerns", (YPCL)
"it is tc early to legislate a specific diversion
model because operational experience has not demon-
strated the general acceptance of any particular
model". (Cab. Doc. YJA)
61
OBJECTIVES
- To formally recognize and encourage the practice of
screening young persons away from Youth Court proceedings when
alternative social or legal means are available.
- To provide standards for the screening of young persons
to encourage consistency in the application and implementation of
screening practices, and to provide safeguards for young persons.
involved in screening practices.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- the guidelines for screening and diversion contained
in the new Act do not, in and of themselves, compel significant
changes within the juvenile justice system. Significance is however,
contained in the spirit of legitimation and encouragment contained
in the provisions, as well as the concomitant financial committments
which have been provided by the Federal government for the develop-
ment of screening and diversion practices.
- Screening and diversion practices presently occur on a
large scale. The police, for example, currently charge fewer than
50% of the alleged juvenile offenders they contact. Juveniles are
warned or referred to other resources more often than they are
charged by the police (S.R. p. 6,7,20,21,22, 23) Police practices
however, vary significantly according to the location of the
police department (province, city), and by a wide range of variables • associated with juveniles - age, sex, offence, previous contacts,
etc. S.R. p.9,12,15,16,17,20,21,22,23). Screening and diversion
1II
I111t1IiIIII
62
practices are also known to occur at the post-charge stages of
proceedings (prosecutorial screening for e.g.) Statistics are
not available, however, which give an accurate idea as to the
extent of these practices. (For a typology of the Canadian juvenile
justice process see S.R. p24)
b) Young Persons
- the increased use of screening and diversion practices
would undoubtedly have an impact on young persons. The 'exact
nature of this impact is not easily predicted. Several systemic effects
can be envisioned if there is a significant increase in the amount
of "programmed" screening and diversion. For example, the charge,
warning and referral rates of police may be altered; the types
of services offered young persons who are diverted may be qualitatively
different than for young persons who appear in court (legal services,
treatment programs, etc.); judges may tend to deal with young persons
who appear in Youth Court in a more "severe" manner if a young person
as been previously involved with a diversion program.
c) Parents
- the extent to which a parent is willing to become
involved with and take responsibility for the behaviour of a young
person may become an increasingly crucial factor in determining
whether a young person is to be diverted or whether formal procedures
will be invoked.
d) The Community
- community "tolerance" has often been cited as a
crucial factor in determining the extent to which juvenile justice
personnel use informal methods for dealing with young offenders.
The attitudes of communities toward youth crime and the use of
diversion will therefore continue to be important in the development
of screening and diversion practices.
63
- the initiation of diversion programs will depend on
the innovation and dedication exhibited by individual citizens in
the community.
e) The Police
- police will continue to play the foremost role in
determining pre-charge screening and diversion practices.
- the provision of guidelines for screening and diversion
may affect the degree to which screening and diversion is used by
certain police departments, the organizational and procedural structures
of certain police departments, and the degree of standardization of such
practices across the country.
f) Provincial Government & Services
- provincial legislation and funding priorities will
continue to determine the basic procedures used in respect to the
charging, prosecuting and diverting of young persons who become
involved with the juvenile justice system.
g) The Youth court
- the number of young persons appearing in Youth Court
will be affected according to the extent to which young persons are
diverted at the pre-charge stage of the juvenile justice process.
- Youth Court personnel (including judges, prosecutors,
intake workers, dUty counsel, etc.) will continue to play an impor-
tant role in determining the number of young persons diverted at
post-charge, pre-trial stages of proceedings.
h) Federal Government & Services
- the funding priorities and efforts of the Federal
Government in developing and evaluating diversion "models" and
programs will exert significant influence in determing the direction
of screening and diversion practices throughout the country.
III1tItIIiIIII1II
64
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating screening and diversion practices at
pre-charge stages, including:
a) The influence of community structure and-
attitudes on the use of screening anddiversion by the police '
b) Provincial legislatio D and program fundingpriorities
c) The effect of organization variables on theuse of screening and diversion by the police
d) The effect of Youth Court practices (inparticular post-charge diversion progra m and
sentencing patterns) on the use of screeningand diversion by the police
e) The effect on attitudes and behaviour ofyoung persons.
2. Monitoring and evaluating screening and diversion practices at
post-charge stages, including:
a) Provincial legislation and program fundingpriorities
b) Procedures and programs used to screen anddivert young persons at post-charge stages
c) The effect of post-charge screening anddiversion on police practices (ioe. charge anddiversion rates).
3. Evaluating various "models" of diversion with particular concern
given to the further development of standards and guidelines which
could be incorporated into legislation (either Provincial or Federal).
I
65
4. Monitoring and evaluating the use of the screening and
diversion guidelines provided in the Young Offenders Act
(by the police, prosecutors, probation officers, social
workers, etc.).
66
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - REVIEWS
ASSUMPTIONS
The role and responsibility of the Youth Court during the
post-dispositional stages of a young personb involvement with the
juvenile justice system have been major concerns in the drafting
of the Young Offenders Act. Current circumstances which allow for
the transfer of authority of a young person from the juvenile court
to provincial directo'rs as well as indeterminate lengths .of time
for case and custody dispositions are not provided for in the new
legislation.
The new Act assumes that the Youth Court should determine the
need for and nature of all dispositions, including those involving
custody, and further, that the Youth Court should retain ultimate
jurisdiction over all young persons involved in the fulfillment of
dispositional orders. This new approach stems primarily from the
belief that the Youth Court should be given the mandate to protect
society, as well as, the rights and interests of young persons. It
therefore follows, that the youth court should have ultimate respon-
sibility for determining the dispositions of young persons.
A post-dispositional review procedure is provided for in the
new legislation in order to allow for a continued monitoring of
dispositions by the Youth Court.
Reviews of dispositions are needed.. "to guarantee that
State intervention in the lives of young persons continues
to be restricted and is indeed adequate in servicing of
the young person's needs". (U.N.)
67
"it must be ensured that the required facilities and
services are removed or modified when they are no
longer required. Such an objective can only be
fulfilled if there is a continuing well-organized review
process". (YPCL)
"the progress and welfare of a young person should be
subject to continuing attention during the term of a dis-
position". (Cab. Doc. YJA)
OBJECTIVES
- To make the Youth Court ultimately responsible and
accountable for determining the nature of dispositions and to give
the youth Court continued authority ovèr a young person during
post-dispositional stages.
- To provide for procedures for review of dispositions, in
order that the length and basic nature of a disposition can not
be changed without recourse to the Youth Court.
- To provide for mandatory periodic reviews within minimum
specified intervals of dispositions involving custody.
- To provide for reviews of both custody and non-custody
dispositions, under certain conditions, at the instance of the
provincial director, prosecutor, young person or parent.
- To provide for reviews at the instance of a prosecutor or
provincial director in cases where there has been an alledged wilful
1 1
I1I1Iti1II1III1I
68
failure to comply with an original disposition on the part of the
young person, and to provide judicial options in those cases where
wilful failure has been established.
- To allow provincial service administrators the discretion
to determine the level of security, the programs and the institution
best suited for a young person committed to custod y.
- To allow provincial service administrators authority to
release a young person from custody to community supervision only
after serving notice of such intentions and recommending the
conditions of release, and only after such intentions have been
subject to judicial review at the instance of the judge, prosecutor,
the young.person and/or his parents.
- To allow a province or territory the authority to appoint
an independent review board to carry out the responsibility of
review subject to the condition that all decisions of such a review
board are reviewable in a Youth Court at the instance of the judge,
the prosecutor, the provincial director, the young person and/or
a parent.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- judges currently are empowered under the Juvenile
Delinquent's Act to order a post-dispositional review anytime up to
the twenty-first birthday of a young person. Although no statistics
are available as to the frequency of which this provision is invoked,
it is generally believed that it occurs rarely.
I
III1I1II11II1IIIII
69
- the formalization of review procedures as required
by the Young Offenders Act will have significant impact on the
juvenile justice system in that it will, for the most part, be
an additional procedure and will dramatically increase the involvement of
the Youth Court in the*post-dispositional stages.
- the extent to which the review procedures will have
impact on Youth Courts will depend on whether or not provinces choose
to adopt the independent review board "model" as allowed for in the
Act.
b) Young Persons
- the Youth Court will retain ultimate authority over
the nature of dispositions served by young persons.
- young persons being held in custody will receive
mandatory, periodic, judicial reviews of their situation.
- young persons will be allowed to request reviews of both
custody and non-custody dispositions under the conditions provided
for in the legislation.
- young persons will be subject to reviews (at the instance
of the prosecutor or provinc$l director) when there is an alleged
wilful failure to comply with a disposition, and will be further
subject (if wilful failure is established) to further disposition
sanctions.
- young persons committed to custody will be subject
to the authority of provincial directors in establishing the level
of security and type of programs they will receive.
c) Parents
- parents will have authority to request reviews of both
custody and non-custody dispositions under conditions established in
the legislation.
I
70
d) The Community
N/A
e) The Police
N/A
f) Provincial Government & Services
- Provinces will be authorized to appoint an_
independent review board which would be ultimately responsible
to the Youth Court, but would have authority to perform the
basic function of dispositional reviews.
- Provincial directors will be authorized to
request reviews of both custody and non-custody dispositions
under the conditions established in the legislation, and to
request reviews where they allege a wilful failure to comply
with a disposition.
- Provincial directors will be subject to review
proceedings (if requested by the judge, prosecutor, parent
or young person) prior to releasing a young person from
custody to community supervision.
- Provincial directors will retain authority to
determine the level of security and programs offered a young
person who has been given a disposition of custody.
g) The Youth Court
- the workload of Youth Courts will increase in
proportion to the use of review procedures, and depending
on whether provinces should choose to use an independent
review board model.
- judges will become ultimately responsible and
accountable for determining the nature and conditions of
dispositions served by young offenders.
h) Federal Government & Services
N/A
71
III11II1IIIIIIIII
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effects of the review
provisions of the Young Offenders Act, including:
a) The increased workload of Youth Courts
b) The use of independent review boards byprovinces
c) The origin of review requests
d) Changes in dispositions which result fromestablished "wilful failures"
e) Problems experienced by provincial directorsand judges in complying with the reviewprocedures
f) The extent to which there is greater consis-tency of treatment
I
72
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - DETENTION
ASSUMPTIONS
The young Offenders Act takes the position that when a young person is arrested by a police officer the provisions
of the Criminal Code in respect to arrest, detention and bail
should apply. The new Act goes further, however, by providing
special criteria and safeguards for the use of detention.
The fundamental assumption is retained that young
persons should be detained in facilities separate from adults.
Exceptions are allowed however, under circumstances where the safety of the public or the young person or the lack of
separate facilities within reasonable geographic proximity
dictate the necessity to use an adult facility. The new Act also reflects the assumption that parents should be notified
when a young person has been detained.
A priniple of restraint in the use of custodial deten-
tion is also reflected in the provision of the Act which allows
for the placement of a young person in the care of a responsi-
ble adult as an alternative to custodial detention.
Finally, although the new Act would give authority to
police officers to make detention decisions, it also provides
for provincial discretion to authorize some other agent or
authority to make such decisions.
- "detention can often be a traumatic experience which may colour a young persons' perceptions of the Youth Court and himself." (YPCL)
- "In the interest of prevention and diversion it is important that the young person not be detained in what the community or the young person regard as an adult criminal facility." (YFCL)
- "In practice some young persons are unnecessarily separated from their homes and communities or unnecessarily deprived of their liberty through placement in secure custody." (YPCL)
IIII1IIIIIIIIIIII
73
OBJECTIVES
- To make the provisions of the Criminal Code in respect
to arrest, detention and bail apply for young persons, with
additional safeguards provided in the Young Offenders Act.
- To retain the principle of separate detention of
young persons and adults in all but the most exceptional cases,
and to further endorse a principle of restraint in the use of
custodial detention where other alternatives could be found.
- To formally recognize the decision-making authority
of policy officers in respect to detention decisions, where
provincial legislation has not identified other agents for
this purpose.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- the effect of the new legislation in changing
current practice in respect to detention are not likely to be
dramatic. The main intent is to articulate, where the Juvenile
Delinquents Act is silent, minimum standards for the use of
detention.
b) Young Persons
- young persons will continue to be detained,
except under exceptional circumstances, separately from adults.
- fewer young people may be held in custodial
detention in those jurisdictions where alternative means are
developed
- some young persons may take advantage of the
Criminal Code provisions in respect to bail.
I
74
c) Parents
- some parents may take advantage of the Criminal
Code provisions in respect to bail if their son/daughter is
detained.
d) The Community
- more young persons may be detained under the
auspices of responsible adults in the community
e) The Police
- police will retain authority to make detention
decisions except in those provicnces where other decision-
making agents are designated
- certain procedural adjustments may be required
as a result of the applicability of the Criminal Code provisions
in respect to arrest, detention and bail.
f) Provincial Government & Services
- provinces may choose to designate agents other
than the police to take responsibility for making detention
decisions.
g) The Youth Court
- judges may be designated in some provinces as the
authorities for making detention decisions
h) Federal Government & Services
N/A
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the use of detention for young
persons, including:
75
a) The number of young persons detained prior to an appearance in Youth Court
b) Time spent in pre-trial detention by young persons
c) Non-custodial detention alternatives
d) The number of young persons held in adult facilities and an assessment of the impact of these experiences
e) The types of facilities and programs used for detaining young persons
f) The use of agents other than the police for making final decisions in respect to detaining young persons.
2. Development of criteria for determining when separation from
home and community is necessary, also when use of secure custody
is necessary.
76
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - PRIVACY & PUBLICITY OF TRIALS
ASSUMPTIONS
The Juvenile Delinquents Act takes the position that
trials under it should be private and open to members of the
public only with the permission of the judge. It also pro-
vides that trials are to be held without publicity, and that
no publication could identify a child involved in proceedings
without special leave from the court.
The Young Offenders Act, however, takes the position
that public scrutiny and monitoring of Youth Courts is both
desirable and necessary, and more consistent with the new
emphasis on the responsibility and accountability of young
persons, due process, and the need to protect and respect the
rights of young persons. Public access to the Youth Court, it
is assumed, will also tend to increase public confidence in the
juvenile justice system and encourage community involvement in
juvenile corrections.
It is also assumed, however, that young persons need
continued special safeguards to maintain their anonymity.
In this regard, media coverage of Youth Court proceedings will
not be allowed to include the naines of young persons involved.
As well, the Youth Court judge will be given authority to
exclude from the court any person(s) whose presence is deemed
unnecessary to the conduct of the proceedings and where it
appears to be in the best interest of the young person to do so.
OBJECTIVES
- To increase community awareness, monitoring, and
involvement in the juvenile justice system by allowing public
access to the Youth Court.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1II
77
- To retain the principle of not publicly identifying
young persons involved in Youth Court proceedings by disallowing
identification of a young person through the media.
- To further safeguard the interests of young persons
by allowing judicial discretion to exclude members of the
public from Youth Court proceedings.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- The extent to which providing for a more "open"
Youth Court will result in significant changes in current
practices is difficult to predict. Some provinces are moving
in this direction by means of their own legislation amendments
(e.g. Ontario), and current practices in some jurisdictions is
such that it is not exceptionally difficult to be allowed
"observer" status in Youth Court. The most significant
differences will no doubt tend to occur for the more "sensational"
trials when public and media interést will be heightened. The
provisions which allow the judge to exclude members of the public
or media representatives from the Youth Court should, however,
serve to prevent trial proceedings from becoming overly
influenced and affected by observers.
b) Young Persons
- the provisions in respect to privacy and publicity
are not meant to impact on individual young persons. Their
identity should remain anonymous to the public. Some difficulties
may be experienced by young persons, however, if large numbers
of observers and journalists attend proceedings.
I
1I
II
IIIIIIIIII
78
c) Parents
- increased attention and public awareness of the
case of a young person may adversely affect a parent's willing-
ness to attend or become involved in proceedings.
d) The Community
- public awareness of the work of the Youth Court
should be heightened under the new Act because of an increased
attendance of citizens and in particular because of increased
media coverage.
e) The Police
- police will no longer be required to remain
publicly silent (except for identifying names) in respect to
cases involving young persons.
f) Provincial Government & Services
N/A
g) The Youth Court
- increased numbers of citizen "observers" may
attend Youth Court proceedings
- journalists will attend some Youth Court
proceedings
- Judges will retain the authority to exclude members
of the public in the interests of a young person
h) Federal Government & Services
N/A
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effect of the provisions
I
IIIII1IIIItII1II
79
for privacy and publicity of trials, including:
a) The attendance of citizen "observers"
b) The attendance of journalists and theamount of publicity given to YouthCourt proceedings
c) The implications for young persons,parents, police, court personnel, etc.
d) Judicial use of the authority to excludemembers of the public
e) The overall awareness of citizens of thepurpose and work of the juvenile justicesystem and their confidence in the system
f) The effect on citizen involvement injuvenile corrections
g). The success of media restrictions onensuring anonymity
I
80
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT
ASSUMPTIONS
An assumption contained in the Juvenile Delinquents
Act and retained by the Young Offenders Act is that for
certain exceptional cases, the procedure and resources of
the juvenile justice process are inappropriate and insufficient,
and that under these circumstances the case is more appropriately
dealt with in adult court.
- "Flexibility must be provided in the legislation in
order to permit the transfer of certain young
persons to the adult court". (YPCL)
- "Transfers should be considered only with respect
to serious offences". (YPCL)
- "Transfers... should be limited to those instances
where the Youth Court judge determines that the
characteristics of the young person, the circum-
stances of the alleged offence and the dispositions
and services available in the adult system suggest
the young person would be more appropriately and
adequately dealt with in adult court". (YPCL)
OBJECTIVES
- To retain the basic provisions of the juvenile Delin-
quents Act with respect to transfers to adult court with the
exceptions of;
a) providing additional and more specific criteria for consideration in making a transfer decision
b) compelling the judge to give reasons for such a decision
81
IIf
III
1I1I1IIIII
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- the number of transfers to adult court are currently
approximately 150 per year (S.R. p. 25). This number is made
up largely of young people between the ages of 16 - 18, provinces
with maximum ages of 16 years transfer very few young persons
each year.
- the provisions of the new Act do not imply
significant changes in current practice. The provision of
"criteria" for making a transfer decision, and compelling
judges to give reasons for transfer decisions may serve to
improve consistency in practice across the country.
- an outside variable may have some ef^ect on the
number of transfer decisions made under the new Act. The move
to definite sentencing with a maximum time of 2 years may
result in an increase in transfers to adult court.
b) Young Persons
- young persons who have allegedly committed serious
criminal offences may tend to receive more transfers (because
of the definite sentencing provisions of the new Act).
c) Parents
N/A
d) The Communitv
N/A
e) The Police
- police who serve as prosecutors may push for
more transfers as a result of the definite sentencing provisions
f) Provincial Government & Services
N/A
I
82
g) Youth Court
- judges will be required to take into consideration
"criteria" for making transfer decisions as provided in the legislation
- judges will be required to give written reasons
for transfer decisions
h) Federal Government & Services
N/A
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effect of the transfer
provisions, including:
a) The number of transfers made
b) The reasons for transfers (as specified by the judge)
c) The types of sentences received by young persons transferred to adult court
d) The effect of the 2-year maximum sentence on the use of transfers
2. Further development of criteria for establishing appro-
priateness of transfer decisions.
II1I
IIIIII1II1III
83
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - FINGERPRINTING AND PHOTOGRAPHING
ASSUMPTIONS
The Juvenile Delinquents Act makes no provisions for
the fingerprinting and photographing of juveniles. The
Identification of Criminals Act has been deemed to apply to
juveniles in certain jurisdictions. However, since the
Identification of Criminals Act applies only to individuals
charged with indictable offences and since the Juvenile
Delinquents Act defines all offences committed by juveniles
as summary offences, the law is not clear on this matter.
There is a... "need of the police to take finger-
prints and photographs during the courts of their
investigation. However... such circumstances should
be limited to those instances where it is absolutely
necessary, in order to protect the young persons
from undue intervention." (YPCL)
"The taking of fingerprintes and photographs should
be permitted by the police in the cases of indictable
offences as is now permitted under the Identification
of Criminals Act." (Compendium)
OBJECTIVES
- To enhance criminal investigative operations by
allowing for the fingerprinting and photographing of young
persons under basically the same conditions as presently apply
to adults.
- To restrict the use of fingerprints and photographs
of young persons by specifying where they are to be stored and
I
IIIiII1IIIIIIIII
I
84
the circumstances under which police officers would have access
to them, and further to allow for penalties for the misuse
of fingerprints and photographs.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- the provision relating to fingerprinting and
photographing contained in the new Act will have an immediate
effect of clarifying the law in respect to the applicability
of these practices to young persons.
- clarifying the law in favour of the use of
fingerprints and photographs for young persons who have
committed indictable offences will probably result in an
overall increase in the number of young persons fingerpinted
and photographed, as well as an increased use of such records
in the investigative operations of the police.
b) Young Persons
- an increased number of young persons will be
fingerprinted and photographed.
c) Parents
;7/A
d) The Community
N/A
e) The Police
- police will be allowed to take the fingerprints
and photographs of young persons under the conditions of the
Identification of Criminals Act.
- police officers will have access to fingerprints
and photographs of young persons for investigative purposes
in the Youth Court records and the central depository of thé
RCMP (under conditions specified in the Act.)
I
85
f) Provincial Government & Services
N/A
g) Youth Court
- fingerprints and photographs will be stored
in Youth Court records, and it will become the responsibility
of the court clerk to ensure that improper access does not
occur.
h) Federal Government & Services
- the fingerprints and photographs of young
persons will be stored in the central depository of the RCMP.
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the use of fingerprints and
photographs of young persons, including:
a) The number of young persons finger-printed and photographed
b) Procedures used by the police for taking fingerprints and photographs
c) The use of fingerprints and photographs for criminal Investigations
d) Penalties given for the misuse of finger-prints and photographs
e) Effectivenss of procedures for restricting use
f) Impact on criminalization of young persons
86
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS - YOUTH COURT RECORDS
ASSUMPTIONS
The Juvenile Delinquents Act contains no provision
in respect to the keeping of records. A working assumption
in the preparation of new legislation has been that specific
guidelines are needed regarding the creation, maintenance,
-confidentiality and accessibility of Youth Court records.
Guidelines are needed... "to ensure that a uniform
policy pertaining to these issues is established
for the guidance of court administrators and of
persons seeking access to records and especially
for safeguarding the confidentiality of the young
person's background which may be found in the Youth
Court record." (YPCL)
OBJECTIVES
- To give responsibility for the keeping of records to
the clerk of the Youth Court.
- To allow access to Youth Court records during
proceedings and dispositions (unless the Judge deems that
such access would be seriously injurious to the young person)
to the young person, his parents, his lawyer, a prosecutor,
any judge, a federal or provincial correctional or social
service representative (for purposes of proceedings against
a young person), a police officer (for purposes of investiga-
ting an indictable offence), and at the discretion of the
judge, any other person who has a valid interest in the
proceedings and work of the Youth Court.
I
ItI1I
IIIIt1III
87
- To allow access to Youth Court records when the
proceedings or the disposition are no longer in effect, to
the Attorney General, and to any one else with judicial
consent.
CONSEQUENCES
a) General
- the overall effect of the provisions relating
the Youth Court records contained in the new Act will be
to give clearer guidance as to what standards apply to the
use of such records. The extent to which these standards
conflict with current practices is difficult to assess.
b) Young Persons
- young persons will have access to their
records as of right, subject to exceptions in cases where
the Court deems such access may be specifically injurious.
- the.quality, completeness and accuracy of
records should improve under the new Act, and any action•
taken on behalf of a young person with regafd to such
records should therefore be more viable.
c) Parents
- parents will have access to Youth Court records.
d) The Community
N/A
e) The Police
- procedures for access to and the use of
records will be clarified for the police
f) Provincial Government & Services
- provincial service administrators will have
access to Youth Court records when the proceedings or
dispositions are in effect.
I
I
I
I1IIIsIIIIII
.1
88
- provincial Attornies General will have access
to Youth Court records after dispositions are no longer
in effect.
g) The Youth Court
- Youth Court clerks will become responsible
for the keeping of records and ensuring proper maintenance
and access to such records
- judges will retain authority to deny access
to young persons if it is deemed that such access may be
"seriously injurious"
- judges will retain authority to permit access
to researchers or other such individuals who have interest
in the proceedings and work of the Youth Court
- judges will retain authority to permit access
to provincial Attornies General or other individuals after a
disposition is no longer in effect
h) Federal Government & Services
N/A
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
1. Monitoring and evaluating the keeping and use of Youth
Court records, including:
a) The extent to which the guidelines ofthe Young Offenders Act differ fromcurrent practices.
b) The contents of Youth Court records
c) The use of records by police, lawyers,prosecutors, judges, provincial servicedirectors, provincial Attornies General,researchers and other individuals
d) The effect of allowing young persons andparents access to Youth Court records, in-cluding judicial denials of such access
I
104
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND STATISTICS DIVISION
MANDATE
- Development of information systems
- Design, implementation, and analysis of special surveys
- In-house statistical and systems analysis
- Contracted statistical and systems analysis
PROPOSED PROJECTS Research Possibilities
1. INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
B(1c) D(2) H(1b) J(1a) J(1d)
K(1a) K(1e) K(1f) M(1a)
M(1c) N(1d)
An effective ongoing evaluation of many of the new
provisions of the Young Offenders Act will depend on the
regular availability of information which is not currently
available. It is suggested that the present efforts to
improve and expand juvenile justice information systems
should attempt to evaluate the feasibility of developing
information systems for the following area; the use of child
welfare courts for dealing with the "criminal" behaviour of
children and young persons, the use of adult courts for deal-ing with the Provincial Statute or Municipal By-Law offences
of young persons, pre-charge and post-charge screening and
diversion, appeals, reviews, the use of custodial detention
(including the use of bail), custody dispositions, and
transfers to adult court.
2. POLICING SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A(1) C(2) H(1a) I(1a)
I(1c) I(1d) I(2c) 1(4)
105
A recent analysis of a Statistics Canada survey
of screening practices indicated that the organizational
and procedural variables of police departments plays an
important role in determining charge and diversion rates.
The Juvenile Delinquency Committee of the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police has expressed interest in
undertaking further research in this area to facilitate
the development of standards and guidelines for youth
policing.
It is suggested that this work be given relatively
high priority in the development of a research strategy.
3. SENTENCING PATTERNS ANALYSIS
B(1d) B(2) C(1a) C(1b)
C(1c) C(1d) H(1d) H(le)
It is suggested that after the first 2 or 3 years of
published data is available, covering a period during which
the Young Offenders Act was in force, that an analysis be
undertaken to compare sentencing patterns under the Juvenile
Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act.
4. SPECIAL SURVEYS general
Data needs will undoubtedly occur as a result of
the non-feasibility of incorporating certain requirements
into ongoing information systems or as a result of the lack
of capacity to undertake particular research projects.
It is suggested that I.S.S.D. should maintain a
capacity to co-ordinate special surveys as part of the Young
Offenders research strategy.
IIIIII1II1IIIII1II
STATISTICS CANADA
MANDATE
106
- Ongoing data collection programs and publications
- Special surveys
PROPOSED PROJECTS Research Possibilities
1. ONGOING DATA COLLECTION B(lc) C(la) C(lc) C(ld)
PROGRAMS H(la) H (lb) H(1c) H(ld)
A proper monitoring and evaluation of the Young
Offenders Act will depend to a large extent on the continued
efforts of Statistics Canada to publish accurate and up-to-date
information on a variety of facets of the juvenile justice
process.
Continued and expanded efforts will be required in the
following areas; police contacts with young persons, screening
practices, and sentencing patterns.
4
I
Ii
APPENDIX I
IIII1IIIIIIIIIII
AD HOC YOUNG OFFENDERS IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
(Participants in Preparation of Research Strategy)
Francine Bertrand
Stan Divorski
Aaron Caplan
Jean Trêpanier
John Jackson
Pat Rolfe •
Omer Archambault
Tom Sterritt
Marcel Laniel
John Townsend
Lloyd Johnson
Len Wevrick
Research Programs
Research Programs
Research Resources
Research Resources
Consultation & Communications
Consultation & Communications
Policy Planning & Program Evaluation
Policy Planning & Program Evaluation
Policy Planning & Program Evaluation
Information, Systems & Statistics
Information, Systems & Statistics
Information, Systems & Statistics
I
CODE
U.N.
APPENDIX II
DOCUMENTS'USED TO DELINEATE "ASSUMPTIONS"
1. Fifth U.N. Congress - Canadian Delegation Position - Young Offenders (May 1975)
2. Young Persons in Conflict with YPCL the Law 1975
Briefing Notes YPCL
3. Briefing Notes - Young Persons in Conflict with the Law (June 1976)
4. Compendium of Consultation (Aug. 1976)
5. Cabinet Memorandum on Youth Justice Act (Sept. 1976)
6. Discussion Papers for Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers Responsible for Corrections and Attorneys General (June 1977)
7. Highlights of the proposed new legislation for young offenders (1977)
Compendium
Cab. Doc.
Fed.Prov.Conf.
Highlights
8. Federal Working Group Proposals FWG Proposals (December 1977)
IIIIIIIII1IIIIIII
APPENDIX III
RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
BY LEGISLATIVE FOCUS
(A) AGE JURISDICTION
1. Monitoring and evaluating the way in which children(under 12 years) who commit criminal offences are dealtwith (including changes to Provincial legislation,police practices, treatment programs, legal safeguards,etc.)
2. Comparing and evaluating different approaches to dealingwith 16-18 year olds (i.e. within the juvenile justicesystem or the adult justice system).
3. Examining the psychological capacities of young peopleto understand the nature and consequences of illegalbehaviour.
4. Identifying treatment modet.S which hold young personsresponsible and accountable for their behaviour whilerecognizing their limited maturity and development.
5. Examining the effects of holding young persons responsibleand accountable for their behaviour on such things aslabelling, deterrence, recidivism, and on young person'sperceptions of the criminal justice system.
6. Monitoring and evaluating the effect of eliminating theoffence of "contributing to delinquency" and excludingadults from the jurisdiction of the Youth Court.
(B) OFFENCE JURISDICTION
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effect of excludingProvincial Statute and Municipal By-Law offences from
I
iv
jurisdiction of Federal juvenile justice legislation, including:
a) The Provincial Legislative response
b) The response of Municipal governments
c) The effect on the Youth Court (procedures, caseloads, etc.)
d) The effect of the change on young persons (in particular the changes evidenced in sentencing patterns and service delivery to young persons).
e) Changes initiated and difficulties experienced by the police
f) Inter-provincial disparities
2. Monitoring the extent to which there is a concomitant change in the number of young persons being criminalized.
3. Effects on attitudes and future behaviour of young persons because of change in law.
(C) SENTENCING (DISPOSITIONS)
1. An overall monitoring of sentencing patterns under the Young Offenders Act, including:
a) Types of dispositions used
b) Lengths of time served for probation and custody dispositions
c) The involvement of victims in dispositional agreements
d) Provincial disparities
2. Monitoring difficulties experienced and changes initiated by the police, Youth Court judges, and provincial service administrators in complying with the new philosor+hy and sentencing provisions of the Young Offenders Act.
IIIIIIIIIIIiIII1II
v
3. Encouraging the development of compensatory dispositionaloptions and evaluating the benefits, drawbacks, andadministrative problems in using these types ofdispositions.
4. Evaluating new dispositional options initiated at thelocal level and developing more sophisticated methodsof communicating new ideas in this regard to othercommunities across the country.
5. Evaluating the extent to which determinant dispositionsserve the objectives of social defense and limitedintervention.
6. Monitoring the attitudes of young persons in respect todispositions received from the Youth Court (i.e. perceptionsof fairness, severity, etc.)
(D) LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS
1. Monitoring and evaluating the use of defence counsel inthe juvenile justice syste, including:
a) The quantity and quality of legal counsellingand representation given to young persons
b) The attitudes of young persons, parents, police,judges, prosecutors, and lawyers themselves, onthe rights of young persons and on the use andeffectiveness of lawyers in the juvenile justicesystem
c) The effects of lawyers on the juvenile justicesystem (e.g. pleas, adjournments, time delays,lengths of trials, sentencing patterns, etc.)
d) The ability of young persons to use lawyerseffectively.
2. Monitoring the implications of giving young persons theright to appeal.
I
vi
(E) PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT
1. Monitoring practices in respect to the notification of parents used by the police and court administrators and the development of guidelines for effective notification procedures.
2. Evaluating the effect of parental notification and attendance on young persons, particularly with regard to those circumstances where the young person no longer lives at home.
3. Monitoring and evaluating parental satisfaction with the juvenile justice system, including:
a) Their opinion of the treatment given both them-selves and their son/daughter by the police, detention supervisors, court officers, judges, probation officers, social workers, custodial staff, etc.
b) Their sense of importance and involvement during the course of their son's/daughter's involvement with the juvenile justice system.
(F) PARTICIPATION OF YOUNG PERSONS
1. Monitoring and evaluating the participation of young persons in the juvenile justice process, including:
a) The awareness of ybung persons to their rights of participation.
b) The extent to which young persons retain counsel on their own initiative, and the extent to which choice of counsel is recognized as the young person's right
C) The extent to which young persons request access to their Youth Court records, the extent to which such requests are refused by Youth Court judges, and the effect of access on young persons
d) The extent to which young persons are aware and properly informed as to their right to request a post-dispositional review, as well as, the extent to which such reviews are initiated at the instance of young persons (see 'Reviews')
vii
e) Young persons perceptions of fairness of treatment
2. Monitoring the difficulties experienced by police, judges and provincial service administrators in recognizing and allowing the participation of young persons, (through retaining their own counsel, having access to Youth Court records and post-dispositional review procedures, etc.)
(G) SPECIAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
1. Monitoring and evaluating changes in current practices which result from the Young Offenders Act, including:
a) The taking of statements by police
h) The preparation, use, contents, and availability of pre-disposition reports
c) The use of adjournments and time delays caused by them
d) The use of judicial orders to initiate medical, psychological, or psychiatric assessments.
e) The contents of probation orders
2. To evaluate in a general sense, the extent to which the needs and interests of young persons (and their parents) are provided for and protected under the Young Offenders Act, with particular concern for those areas where the legislation may need to be "tightened up" or formalized further to fulfill this objective.
3. Evaluating the effect of procedural safeguards on perceptions and behaviour of young persons and parents (e.g. sense of fairness, sense of participation and control, etc.)
(H) LIMITING STATE INTERVENTION
1. Monitoring and evaluating the extent of State intervention in the lives of children and young persons, including:
IIIIIIIIiIIIIIIII
a) Police contacts
viii
b) The workloads of Youth Courts, Child Welfare Courtsand Adult Courts (where young people areappearing for certain offences.)
c) The use of screening and diversion practices
d) The types of dispositions given to young persons
e) The length of time served by young persons inthe fulfillment of dispositional agreements
f) Assessment of the extent to which there is alesser degree of interference with freedom forjuveniles than adults.
2. Monitoring the extent to which young persons and theirparents are aware of the implications of State involve-ment, in particular an awareness of who retains authorityover the young person, how long that authority appliesand the requirements of fulfilling a disposition.
3. Determining criteria for assessing when young personsshould be removed from home and/or community settings.
(I) SCREENING AND DIVERSION
1. Monitoring and evaluating screening and diversionpractices at pre-charge stages, including:
a) The influence of community structure and attitudeson the use of screening and diversion by thepolice.
b) Provincial legislation and program fundingpriorities
c) The effect of organizational variables on theuse of screening and diversion by the police
d) The effect of Youth Court practices (in parti-cular post-charge diversion program and sentencingpatterns) on the use of screening and diversionby the police
I
ix
e) The effect on attitudes and behaviour of young people
2. Monitoring and evaluating screening and diversion practices at post-charge stages, including:
a) Provincial legislation and program funding priorities
b) Procedures and programs used to screen and divert young persons at post-charge stages
c) The effect of post-charge screening and diversion on police practices (i.e. charge and diversion rates).
3. Evaluating various "models" of diversion with particular concern given to effectiveness and impact of the program and to the further development of standards and guide-lines which could be incorporated into legislation (either Provincial or Federal).
4. Monitoring and evaluating the use of the screening and diversion guidelines provided in the Young Offenders Act (by the police, prosecutors, probation officers, social workers, etc.)
(J) REVIEWS
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effects of the review provisions of the Young Offenders Act, including:
a) The increased workload of Youth Courts
b) The use of independent review boards by provinces
c) The origin of review requests
d) Changes in dispositions which result from established "wilful failures".
e) Problems experienced by provincial directors and judges in complying with the review procedures.
f) The extent to which there is greater consistency of treatment
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
(K) DETENTION
X
1. Monitoring and evaluating the use of detention for youngpersons, including:
a) The number of young persons detained prior to anappearance in Youth Court.
b) Time spent in pre-trial detention by youngpersons
c) Non-custodial detention alternatives
d) The number of young persons held in adult facilitiesand an assessment of the impact of these experiences
e) The types of facilities and programs used fordetained young persons.
f) The use of bail
g) The use of agents other than the police for makingfinal decisions in respect to detaining youngpersons
2. Development of criteria for determining when separationfrom home and community is necessary, also when use ofsecure custody is necessary.
(L) PRIVACY AND PUBLICITY OF TRIALS
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effect of the provisionsfor privacy and publicity of trials, including:
a) The attendance of citizen "observers"
b) The attendance of journalists and the amount ofpublicity given to Youth Court proceedings
c) The implications for young persons, parents,police, court personnel, etc.
d) Judicial use of the authority to excludemembers of the public
e) The overall awareness of citizens of the purposeand work of the juvenile justice system and theirconfidence in the system
I
Xi
f) The effect on citizen involvement in juvenilecorrections
g) The success of media restrictions on ensuringanonymity
III
(M) TRANSFERS TO ADULT COURT
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effect of the transferprovisions, including:
a) The number of transfers made
IIIIIIIIIIII
b) The reasons for transfers (as specified by thejudge)
c) The types of sentences received by.young personstransferred to adult court
d) The effect of the 2-year maximum sentence on theuse of transfers
2. Further development of criteria for establishingappropriateness of transfer decisions.
(N) FINGERPRINTING AND PHOTOGRAPHING
1. Monitoring and evaluating the use of fingerprints andphotographs of young persons, including:
a) The number of young persons fingerprinted andphotographed
b) Procedures used by the police for takingfingerprints and photographs
c) The use of fingerprints and photographs forcriminal investigations
d) Penalties given for the misuse of fingerprintsand photographs
e) Effectiveness of procedures for restricting use
I
xii
f) Impact on criminalization of young persons
(0) YOUTH COURT RECORDS
1. Monitoring and evaluating the keeping and use of Youth Court records, including:
a) The extent to which the guidelines of the Young Offenders Act differ from current practices
b) The contents of Youth Court records
c) The use of records by police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, provincial service directors, provincial Attornies General, researchers and other individuals
d) The effect of allowing young persons and parents access to Youth Court records, including judicial denials of such access,
IIIIIIIIII
IIIIII
STATISTICAL REFERENCE PACKAGE
Prepared by: Dennis ConlyFor the Research Strategy Committee
I
C
Maximum Age Province or Territory _ _ _ _
16 16 17 16 (for boys) 18 (girls) 16 18 16 18 16 16 16 17
Yukon N.W.T. British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Quebec P.E.I. Nova Scotia New Brunswick Newfoundland **
It
IIIII1Iu1III1II
' rAT W+E OF OEEttqtlE10C3E5St 46E FOR CHIIOREN BROUGH'r TO COURT CANADA, 1973
'gcFNCE TOTAL 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17.. ..__.__ _a' "^ee ^1.l31 113 20i M : 1
•1819! 2.287 4,q76 6,289
_11,758
.3,616
__3,709
1 ..: ► • f té1Ytl1
i- „J,nq
st•q'..t fre^c.ti 1 ,1181 1 6 i 14 18 27 dA 261 711 294 356^ea.•^^t^;ute
• Stdt..s ^/+ences n93 - 1 2 7 fi 26 73 151 193 128 100o•c. •: al Stàtutes 9,886 2 4 9 21 57 M 370 1.071 2,693 2.087 3.437^ni^ pel 3y-L4»% 460 1 2 4 7 22 33 69 115 91 126
TOT 4 44,151 96 218 410 754 1,2l0 7,494 4.642 7,831 12,470 6.216 7,728
4qe 1n Per Cent 100.0 0,2').5 ')-q
1.7 2.9 5.7 111.6 17.7 28.2 14.1 17.5
SOURCE: Juvenile Delinquents 1973,Stâtistics Canada, Cat. No. 85-202
(
.29
I
Ma UM Mit MI Mt BM ilat Me ela aa Mla
c t.
TABLE I: OFFENCE BY AGE OF JUVENILES APPREHENDED BY POLICE
DURING DECEMBER 1976 _CANADA
(pIFEv1, ?CE
cceL,A III FA I 7 cl 9 h) 11 L 13 1; 15 ic 17 Te. 7 14.....,
DuNIClof 4 . . - - - - - - . I.
_
.
Spiel uFFENCR, J6 . - 1 - c . -
.
45s4 ill Is I no 1 INDECENT 112 ) i 8 9 20 44 44 75 53 V_ -
RDR0ERy ii,c1 - 1 1 1 - 2 13 2; 1, _
Linn L ENTER 1, 554 5 16 19 26 45 135 196 313 470 •In.-■
MEET muT0R VEN lc LE 56 1 1 I 4 5 7 13 51 112 176 5 , . . .
MEET MR 1200 183 - 1 1 3 9 lu 22 52 50 21 1 4 .
MEET P00 A NO UNDER 4,467 44 60 74 230 289 667 876 986 931 196 110 4
RAVE SPUN 60fitiS 234 - - - 4 7 M 23 50 69 25 40 .
FRAUDS 145 - - 2 3 8 19 25 31 32 19 6 .
MOMENT ION 9 - _ - - - - - . - 5 4 -
OFFENSIVE WEAPON 60 - - - 2 . 4 3 17 24 7 3 -0THER FR IMINA L CODE 1,461 17 36 38 66 106 174 273 278 2e6 194 26 17
FEDERAL STATUTES - DRu0S 254 _ - - 1 3 5 16 37 110 47 :5 .
OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES 108 - . - - 5 7 14 28 37 10 7 -
PROVINCIAL STATUTES 1.130 6 3 1 j 28 26 61 165 257 373 12: 7 ,:, -
MUNICIPAL LIT-LANs 73 1 - - - 3 5 11 8 22 14 .. _
1 8811 IC En1iRCEKII1 - CRIMINAL CODE 112 . _ - 1 1 - 2 5 17 51 32, •
01111R TRAFFIC ENFORCENENT 700 4 1 1 5 10 26 46 80 141 204 182 -
ALL oFFENcES 11, 5 11 81 122 158 387 540 1.191 1,774 2.352 2.832 1.197 852
KV ENT (I) - AU DIstk luilf Inn 100.0 0.7 I. I 1.4 3.4 4.7 10.3 15.4 20.4 24.6 10.4 7.4 _1
1101•••
1
• GI:FENCES (IN PERCENT) .., !
: ..LS APPREHENDED AND FOK FAch .
• , CANADA, DECEMBER, 197h
1 AIE AGE A. .r. Ail.
. ‘ •-. 1: • 7-1 1 YRS. 12-1. , YI' . 14-1f. r.:.£. 16-17 YRS. c % % ,
. * 3.9 3.4 3.7 5.E
. r•' 51. 5 'It, :t Pr ; • : *- ** I -, 0 . 8 66.1 67.7 61.9 45.0
....., , :•ni.!, II .' - ., 14.6 21.6 16.8 12.9 10.4
Al '.-I'' 19.4 91.5 87.9 78.5 61.3
1
. . . ‘.
' :- 1.• .., 0.1 0.7 2.8 4.0
• t i • ! : ..• . I • - t • , : • J.3 0.4 0.7 1.3 0.8
I %1 ' '' • .',: 7.%.:''' - i - 'i.1 0.7 1.4 4.1 4.9
• ':- -... '. A: '.11TF « 9.8 5.7 7.6 • 12.1 9.8
.:
0.6 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.1
7.1 1.8 2.5 4.7 23.0
I • I '. v; . i) 130.0 100.0 100.0 130.0
1
11 - Includes homicide, sexual offences, assaults (not indecent) and robbery.
* Inclues breal i:'c , and entering, theft motor vehicle, theft over and under $200, and
have stolen goods.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ W am m m m ^ l ^^ ^ m AM m W W
.-!`.f. . ^ti•. ^ ._.. ' . . ^ . ., . . . v= ^Y. -_ . .
r-
; Tol:. AvvaEHEr.E- h vtr;li^••BO► SG!RLS
ALE- '-11
AGfZ 12-13
AGED 14-15
AGEO 16-17
BoysG:RLS
BOY SGIRLS
BorSGIRLS
Bor5GIRLS
.9c5 31^2,'15 Ut
85- 184
1,18a 54(3.92' 809
?,Oaÿ .1 5i1,E6' 7ryP
389 lE3
I
.. .:h_:G.
CANADA^ J!._Ot -
:DAi :RAf^lc -B'-ta.t5 OE«MCES
^--------;-
_- '4 RI'E YC RL'r
t
2 { 511 ;5f 3 I 749 33
7 0 I 63 3
0 23 1° < c ^ t 0 22 2
.. 'S I . + 'a 3 - - 1 0
If 2 74 81,9t 3r5 22 a 1:" 24 14 3 70 14
73: 149 2? _ °.4 +, ° ? 0 4 1
1,^E? <20 212 ?2 63C 6f 3C 3 243 263,155 E5^ 15E 32 3E' 76 2f 5 224 46
914 10: 57 1? 'e3 57 4 1 19 1
!.15t 219 99 4 S 47! 1051,034 491 E3 3C 19Q cl 1C 432 205
22221 93 It 15 97 39 0 39 16
.---------•^`----
• Rates are based on 19'5 ?u.er.4le pco,1ac1o,, f4çures
Excluding the cases whert age a; 'qc' std;rC'
I
F
nu am au am am sap at us me mu ear au szu or um Mg MI UM MI
TABLE 4: AGE GROUP BY POLICE ACTION FOR JUVENILES APPREHENDED BY POLICE
DURING DECEMBER 1976, CANADA
_
in 1 I E Af T INN
4E11011; RUE RFD,
TO At E t.i Y 10 A rI KY RE RA, NE I. ttl, tIttot te t,i;.tbr, Tri NA I. !.I 'i.: T:' itEiEltF.E . 2i
AU 11, ,upph 01, 2F1Mre. I te-
GM MP RIP WIN unman ent IcE Pm III CROUP 1lEtFANE /,
Rh( 'metre. REComm1.11- HOKE CHILDrtEl.
CA IMOA LA T liet (et ION nor re OR Ft.ISTER TOM oreua,u PARENT/ net A IC 11-.4:.f ; 1 ' . -
IOTA I CliAllitE TO C:itlt 1,1 TO CIIARl:E Ici 10H HOME {JARRING 010 Y GUARDIAN OTHER MENNEN SOCIE 17 ter I: f.•
.---t
1- 11 YEARS 1, 7H8 ii..6 n 46 18 a 875 337 532 6 201 97 52
12-13 YEARS 2.%5 655 26 1 1 IA 31 22 1.612 565 1,010. 13 293 66 102 25 103
M-15 YEARS 5,184 1,758 522 99 55 78 2. 106 740 1.319 li 566 220 170 33 143
16- 17 YEAR!. 2, 049 1,264 394 42 47 20 213 139 72 2 69 27 15 2 25
HOT MANN 25 1 1 - 1 11 11 2 9 - - - - - -
TOTAL Ail ACES 11, 5 11 3,784 1,211 273 152 139 4,817 1.803 2.976 30 1.129 4 10 3i' :12
fI ,'-, '. 1I') .
1IrIr
Y r •
7
FOR JUVENTLI:.F --I l.i ; tP] M'
1976, B Y SELEC'I'i.I I
:n
CHARGED*
44.1'
rn
t1 = 2,n.- 5
DIVERTED ** N = 5,1 9,4
,1C9
111II
5f1 7n
I n,,,.
J
. an Act.,,ii charne was îaid and those which werer.rown ,,rr)secutor with a police recommendation
• Y
,or, warninc;s to parent/nuardiar,referrals to:^ro^ation ofricer, school counsellor, etc.,
"f '' •r ,1 nrCl r crown :)rc)sttcutor with police recoT(Tlendation not to^ ^•^^^ r°'^^'^^'. to an institution, qroup home, foster home,
:aken.
I
TABLE III
AT 0}' JI;VENILF CONTACTS BY NA.14k F'-1TFOPOL?TAN A.F£A,
CANADA, DC.EF4BE3 1977
A^'EML7 ROTOI AL HALIFAX
QUEB£C -T--• - -- --- • - • - - --. . .C1'i1'
N(t:SH£r?I. i)';TANP,^HULI. TORUIJ'70 IIAMILT(:i; i,01JïOt: NINDSUR HIN,'JIFE:: ED"'G";,
No 4 ' . t ^ . $ N0. N(.. NC. + ro N0. % ! N0. $ l:0. % NG. $ NC 1:̂.. -- . . 4
7-11 636 12% 9 10% 5 4% 27 4% 51 13% 257 16% 82 20? 22
!
16% 12
I
19$ 50
•
74
I .
--t --•----- --
- . 12-13 1269 24% 24 27% 15 12% 52 10% 100 25% 527 134% 109 27% 38 28% 20 32% 99 14% 60 23% !C6 28: ^1-7 21:
14-15 2324 45$ 57 63% 44 36% 167 31% 219 55% 775 50% 218 53% 76 56% 31 49% 186 29$ 358 59% 161 42% 232 42#,
16-17 970 19% NA NA 60 48% 297 54% 28 7% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 343 50% 43 16% ( 43 11% 156 29;,
UN- - -- ^ KNONN 7 $ - - - 4 1$ 1 $ 2 ..$ - - - - - -
^ttt
TOTAL 5206 100% 90 100% 124 100% 547 100% 398 100$ 1560 100% ^ 4I
` ... J
1I
--
09 100$ 136 100$ 63 100% 678 100% 26E ]G02 2c'_ _- :^
as um am ma au MIR an irmi au an um oat am ire am
TABLE XI
ANt PERCENTABE OF JUVENILES CHt-FGED, BY AGE, GROUP,
MAJr,R METFJ: AREAS CANPDA, DLci:MBEh 1976
\-)
ALL AGES 7 - 11 YFAI.t 12 - 13 YFA-S 14 - 15 YEAFS 1t'- - 1 - '. 11-:
No. NO. CHARGED % ChAk:;ED N ,:. Nn.CFA•GEn % cbANGEI NG. NC.CHAFGEL % CHARGED NO. NG.CNARGED % CFAFI: :.:. !: .1
METFo TuIAL 5,206 2,24n 43% 63E. 76 124 1269 368 30% 2324 1019 44% ;7 , z ,
HALIFAX 90 44 50%__
2 22% 24 11 46% 57 31 5 1J. ::.;. QUEBEC CITY 124 59 47% - 15 4 27% 44 20
--i MoW1REAL 547 426 78% 27 7 26% 52 29 56% ' 167 126 75% 2 ,,.7 264 e, r, OTTAWA/HULL 398 72 18% 51 1 2% 100 8 8% 219 36 16% 26 26 9E%
TORONTO 1,560 357 23% 257 29 11% 527 101 19% 775 226 29% N.A. N.A. N.A. HAMILTON 409 70 17% 82 10 12% 109 11 10% 218 49 22% N.A. N.A. N.A.
LONDON 136 42 31% 22 5 23% 38 6 16% 76 31 41% N.A. N.A. N.A. WINDSOF 63 13 20% 12 2 17% 20 1 5% 31 10 32% N.A. N.!. N.A.
WINNIPEG 678 521 77% 50 5 10% 99 75 76% 186 143 72%
CALGARY 266 254 96% 5 3 60% 60 56 93% 158 153 F,7% !.2 _. -
_ r . EDMONTON 385 115 30% 73 2 3% 108 18 17% 161 79 4 ,1-=1 -.'- LF : vANCOUVLR 550 272 50% 43 10 23% 117 48 41% 232 115 5B% 156 :.:: • - . •
--0
tI
COtJV I CT IONS
^^^^^^ ^S C;'N-: ICTED FOR CONTRIBUTING TO,:L''!E1%ILE LDELINQUENCY, CANADA, 1970-72
1III1IIIIIIII
Yf:11, n
1,-);i *I ') 71 *k
197;' *}*
MAL E fEMALE
749
55^
44'.)
15
2425
FINE
233
165
172
SENTENCE
SUSPENDED SENTENCE
WI THPROBATION
WITHOUTPROBATION
125
114
130
70
34
36
Excludes Quebec and AlbertaLxclucfe-, Q uebec, Alberta and the Yukonfxcludes Ouebec. Alberta. P.E.I., and the Yukon
GAOI.
108
108
65
OTHER
228
158
71
I
1
i II
I •
• 1 •
I
I I
2.4 77.5
! / . r. 2.5 80.1
82.1
riLs 1.'" 87.2
3.4 86.3 MI. t 1.4 84.7
A0.4 1.2 83.6
«41.1 4.9 83.8
7 .. LI 1. t., 84.6
4.7 84.9
■
■ .
vATuRF oF OFFFNCE tIN PERCENT) FOR JUVENILES REPowri:D CHARGED BY POLICE, CANADA, 1966-1975.
STATUTES
- - ! ; ■ MIS.AL I (• , )131.
TOTAL C.C. F.S.
P RoVINCI AL STATUTES
MUNI 1'17AL-1 I3Y -LAWS
17.2
15.7
1.3.8
9.7
11.3
13.2
14.5
14.8
13.6
13.3
5.3
4.2
4.1
3.1
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.9
1
1
SWPC:. C.'!PC ')tatiçtics (Police), 196E-1975, Sta'..istic -Cïiiada, Cat. (D. 85-2 0i
• • : • , 1:8
•• ■ . 1, P.7
I .
I ••:K
19.406
4 1 ,476
*88
"1, 0.1.)
• 122
,400
h4,011
'1.212
PIM
■;.5 -71,
NUMBER AND RATE * OF JUVENILES REPORTED CHARGED BY POLICE, CANADA, 1966-1975 By Four Offence Categories
INAL FEDERAL PMWINCIAL NUNICIPAt
STATUTES STATUTES •• 0Y-LAWS“ ,
.1 RATE NO. RATE NO. RATE NA. RATE
0 5 0 1,2h ,. 30 9,110 217 2,842 ha
1,013 1,422 11 9,081 10e 2,37t 55
1,101 2,084 47 9,126 208 2,729 62
1,151 2,185 51 6,013 115 1,945 14
1 ,19n 2,178 48 7,165 16n 1,47i 17
1,18 0 2,312 51 8,860 194 1,345 :9
1,144 2,081 49 9,474 2nn 1,241 27
1,291 3,607 79 10,958 240 1,115 24
1.421 4,580 102 11,065 246 1,426 32
1,602 4,149 93 11,1117 266 1 ,n17 in
• ..)4....
• 22:. 7 '210.0 • 29.4 . 22.4, - 47.1 - 4/.1
• "sr.: 1 ■ ' uu14r %on
«Jo r•- . rtb4 to. at lue to round l no nt0cedure
SOURCE: Crime Statistics (Police), 1966-197 Sia.tistics Canada, Cat. No. 85-205
t^
I
I^^^1
F-.R ?dï,VI.yCIAL STATUTES
YtAR
1966
1967
196&
19ba
1y73
1971
1972
1913
974
BR1Ti5MCOLUMBIA ALBERTA
NO. RATE NO.
PRttV EVCF.
SASK.
RATE N0.
?.,1?4 709 761 241 45629 158 48 109
;rc 129 187 55 31
s+f 95 212 bl 4
r% 186 187 "2 20i.1 :?0 577 lr.s 23
•'' 1 11 ] 419 114 31
11 t40 529 145 28
1;.'+f 1.66 593 163 102
4') tl2"7 329 28
PROVINCE
NEW ROVAU'•FdE^ BRUNSWICK SCOTIA
NC RATE NO RAT NO, RATE
l t ti^ Î 62 1 46
1 -0 fI 51'
f '!I
7i1
7" 59
J 1 1.v, 113
l. l 1;F a7
^ . -7 i
2:f. lnl 77
- )
261It;'e
32
28
45
43
35
26
41
90
79
77
RATE
I
MAh1T(1bA ONTAR
N0. RATE 40.
1.332
1,380
1.E17
2,253
2.369
2.550
2.943
3.243
2,623
3,267
620
633
736
1019
1070
1145
1330
1479
3209
1532
P.E.I.
NO. RATE
3.055
3,261
5,227
1 .577
1,775
2,194
2,349
2,272
2,578
2,205
1 0
RATE
24]
248
389
115
127
154
163
158
183
159
NFLD.
N0.
YUKON LN.W.T.
RATE
68 53
44 +4
63 48
147 113
122 93
167 127
191 144
219 165
292 221391 299
NO . RATE
'•. •' i^ 1 0u.uuü .'uvani le Pnpulaticn ® Excluder Traffic Uffances
^.OI1RCE: Crie ;*atistics ( Police) 1966-1975,5tdti',tic.', Cânada, Cât. No. 85-205
^
t^
1
^
^ f _.... _ ._SOURCE:----
>Ÿ /
r--
1tAR
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
19141475
RATE 1 NO.
PROVINCE
--^---
BRiTISnCOLUMBIA ALBERTA SASK, MANITOBA ONTARIO
NO.
165
145
24
17
14
36
18
17
3632
F-
'14
41 514
34 19
5 12
3 15
3 21
7 15
3 20
3 43
7 6716 746
_' eE__Ea^^,E E^ARC,t^ b '..?wC
r:;n NU!IClPAL BY-LA'y1S®-
RATE NO.
162 3
5 3
3 15
4 10
5 17
4 5
5 -
11 2
185 10
206 5
KOYASCOTIA
RATE NO. RATE
1 69 32 410
1 71 32 401
7 38 17 473
5 54 24 163
9 53 23 82
2 49 22 136
1
5
3
PROVINCE
C
RATE
NEWBRUNSMICr
N9. RATE
-t--
120 8
121 7
1 4n 17
1:5 5
9R 1
74 3
'•1 3
. i 5
4) 1 1
1_ 1
N0.
6
7
12
12
4
1
?
7
2
RATE
69 31 82
38 17 74
22 10 68
SO 23 70
P.E.I.
N0.
4
4
7
• kate No r 100,000 Juvenile Population
Crime Statistics (Police), 1966-1975,Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 85-205
RATE
9
30
8
35
8
43
25
51
NO.
i
RATE
MFLD.
NO. •
2
1
18
17
14
RATE
^• n . ' y ' ^
YUKON &N.Y.T.
NO.
2
13
12
1
3
RATE
24
(X) Excludes Traffic Offences
.21
^
MI ell UM MI MID UM INS MI OM OM gill Mil MI Mill OM OM IIIIII OM 7
, c. TABLE 5 OFF ENCE_ GROUP BY POLICE ACTION FOR JUVENILES APPREHENDED BY
POLICE DURING DECEMBER 1976 CANADA
FILICE tCTION
li1F11411, RETERI:E0
T.» A :',E , i'i i:'. ALEI;CY RETIIIME1:
OR CIPIlel OR ..;f1W 1 1 TO Relate TO F.EIT' 1•Er. T.'
Pic151CUToR 1410‘.LCUP111 IIIS-
OFFEWE WIIII W I TII TITUT1111.,
6110UP PO'..ICE POI ILE 6801fP WELFM4_,'
ktroMfifti- REC01.01t 1 J- HOME CI 1 111:FS.,'',
CAPt DA DAMN OA TI a re T Nu OR FO'JTER TOTAL Or f EIIIIEP PAIdt1T/ TOTAL AIE! ix.• .r ' ...
, TOTAL CHARCE 10 CHARGE Tu I IMRGE ACTION 110 8E ilARIIINL. UNIT GUARDIAN OTHER REFERRED SOC I E T! ir I, t _Ell ., .
OTTE NCES AGAINST THE PERSON 460 147 49 12 lu - 207 82 117 8 35 7 6 7 15
OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY 6,999 2,418 883 199 51 44 2 ,720 878 1.824 18 678 196 225 27 2.111
0111R CRIMI !et CODE OFTERCES 1,675 351 115 28 32 54 965 397 561 7 130 42 59 9 20
, 8 FLUERAI SlATUTE5 362 132 58 10 2 4 103 33 69 1 53 15 .,
PROVINCIAL STATUTES 1.130 222 52 14 45 37 544 266 275 3 216 14- '1 '
MUNICIPAL [IMAMS 116 18 2 8 2 - 42 22 20 - 1 1 - - -
TRAFF IC OFFENCES 812 496 58 2 4 - 236 125 110 1 16 - •
Alt OFFENCES 11,511 3,784 1, 217 273 152 139 4.817 1.803 2.976 38 1.129 410 33"
III1I
IIIIItIIIIII
SFC:TFP '') T' ' ► '`+^-F GROUPS, CANADA, DECF:"!RF:I•., 1`17r)
Fv Perc•t--:;a cre of. Juveniles Charaed/Divortecl
Mina1
Cod
20
7
Crimes Acrainstthe Person
Crimes
Other
I e I
Federal Statutes
^ - - - - - - - - -
I ProvincialStatutes
^- -
Municipal By-Laws
Traffic
CANADA TOTAL
4t1 Fn Rn
^ X 't Y
tix,txCharaed* Diverted^ 0A^^^
77x A
,AA AAAA
47.1%
27.9N
52.5a. '
^
^c^xx
x 27. 4 ^,. X,
t xX r kX ^ r^
;k ^,\ ^1 I
xXr X X ,^^ 68. 3`Uk x ^t
^TfYzX^ .'A^`r"Y
xtX cx (x ,( r
^aÿY{,,^X y^x 43.4.,
XKX{X^^àf
ln
*
30 50 70
Includes juveniles referred to aaencv or crown prosecutorwith police recommendation to charge.
9n
1
mm m mmm mm mmm mm mmmA =
TABLE III(a)
( ; ! I LN, 'f U1S1'k;BUTlutl BY AGE GROUP, FOR TW£LVr LF.RGEST :`E!'f:N:[. CF.^':GOF:ES,
MAJOR MLTkO TOTAL, CANADA, DECEMBEP 1976
UfF[?Il'f:iALL AtSE:S 7-I1 Y1:ARS 12-15 YEARS 14-15 YEARS
No. % NO. % NO. % NO. % NO.
ALL 011 [:141-FS 5,206
i
100ô
-
636
-^
100% 1,269 100% 2.324 100% 970 100<
!fd'l'1 uNnrk 2,245 43% 377 59Z 718 57% 940 40% 186 19:
l'li(:k 648 12% 122 19% 163 13% 273 12X 89 - -^9 ---t'R1MIN_AL, ftIUC
-['R()VIN('IAI. 531 10% '^--39 6% 102 8% 279 12%-_. •
111 j- -. -111•
STAT[ITL:S[sRi:A: AND
______425 8Â - 30 5% 75 6% 238 10% 81 81
ENTERoTNf:R
' ' '312 6% 7 1% 25 2% 78 3% 201 21 ^( RAf 1Cl _
MOTOR VENICI.C' ` '
209 4% 2 - 28 2% 114 5% 65 7q7 111'f l
A!iSAULT 165 3% 19 3% 44 3% 75 3% 27 3%
rEDEkAL' ' '
152 3% 4 1% 15 1% 77 3% 56 6%S l A1 UTE DRllr,S1101':•LJSI0l1 OF
'129 2% 9 1% 28 2% 73 3% 19 2:;1 ULI?L GOCiUS
1[Lf:11' OVER 79 2% 4 1% 14 1% 39 2% 22 -- - ^ -:r100 .
IkAID 67 1X 13 2% 17 1% 26 1. 1I 1.
k lhhl:kv 51 1X _ 4_ 1% 2 - _ 24 lx 21
I . - F-
ADJUDICATION AMD DISPOSITION OF JUVENILES BROUGHT TO COURT, CANADA, 1971-1973
r
L! 1971 1972 1973 1 I. No. t No. t No. %
L
.
No Action 780 2.0 301 0.7 292 0.7 nIsmissud 1,186 3.1 1,173 2.8 1,374 3.1 wlthdrawn .. .. 1,033' 2.4 1,136 2.6 Adiourned Sine Die 8,324 21.5 7,873 18.7 7,627 17.3 Repatriated 153 0.4 132 0.3 80 0.2 Referred to Adult Court 123 0.3 121 0.3 127 0.3
[
Non Judicial 2,770 7.1 3,093 7.3 3,052 6.9 No Disposition 376 1.0 634 1.5 749 1.7
.._
Reprimand 524 1.4 791 1.9 1,075 2.4 Indefinite Detention 207 0.5 129 0.3 77 0.2 Probation 12,422 12.0 12,053 28.6 11,990 27.2, rine'Restitution 4,31b 11.1 5,220 12.4 6,235 14.1j Training S*:hool 1,641 4.2 1,190 2.8 1,108 2.5' Mental Hospital 14 0.0 35 0.1 20 0.0 Final Disposition Suspended 5,897 15.2 7,179 17.0 7,763 17.6 Suspend Driver's LIcence 62 0.2 195 0.5 171 0.4 t;aol 1 0.0 - - 3 0.0 Reformatory - - - - 1 0.0 Penitentiary - - 6 0.0 1 0.0 Adiourned Sine Die .. .. 950 2.3 1,092 2.5
(after ad ) udication) Probation Terminated .. .. 75 0.2 74 0.2 Absolute Discharge .. .. .. .. 41 0.1 Conditional Discharge .. .. .. .. 63 0.1
GRAND TOTAL 38,798 100.0 42,183 100.0 44,151 100.0
I
indicates that this term was not used as a reporting category. .E. I. did not report any cases to Statistics Canada in 1972 & 1973.
7, ,. 0nlv (ases whicn were heard "formally" were reported to Statistics
II
Cana
d
a, with the exception of Manitoba. Informal or "non-judicial" casos were reported for this province as were "no contact" cases where the child did not appear before a judge at all.
SOURCE: Juviile DelinnuenU; 1971-1973, L ' ' Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 85-202 •
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
A,_ _ - •^tt• '.UE rt7VFNILE r`CL`N"MLYTS A,
<'nUAT OF APPEAL • V; Pt rl • ^ : 1•:
;.+.^•. • r
e::.n: ' .!It
_-••__ :^. .:hteir.^!
rrlur• `. ^ • ::I It:n! .
;.et A i or. a .^••^ r: r-
-- ^I.I .
. ,rta^^ •s ,ire^iseion: • •t, !' -leave) of^:•:..•a, ift 1ithc Court
^%• i! of rDpeal--• çurrerre :'rruat he
--+ •rt -t tineine.i tot1e Prnv!nc! " lanpeal e
deciaton1' of the
i ^ -^ Suore^e
Appeal rsav ! 1 o+vvhe hearC hy ruer heCourt of ehtatnor.
I
Appea i mayhe henrdhy eul•rcneCourt ofranadaeui:senuent
- Appeel to erq^eelfuhseauent. e-tecl%inr. Jto ohtaininy of the Coutt t^ 7leave. -! Nrnea)
(ir+ee pra-cedurw •eanFlie• tt•
^ adulta)
to obtaining)eave.
Thore are indications that this procedure has greatly limited appellate actionur)der tho Juvoni le Del inquents Act. For example, in the province of Ontario, only?;; nntict•ti of appeal under the J.D.A. were reported by juvenile courts duringthe tt)r•ov yr ;lr period Apri 1 1, 1972 to March 31 , 1975. There does not seem to beany irlcliLation that the situation is significantly different in other provinces.
I
SU BIM *III an IIIII gal IMO MI MI
_
TABLE 2: POLICE ACTION FOR JUVENILES APPREHENDED BY POLICE DURING
DECEMBER 19/6 CANADA ANC PROVINCES
Poi ICE knob
none/CAI"
8FcEn. II 8(111•411) PEP*, U'f,
lb • fi"wi 1,1,4■ :1 rfo: tri.Tur. r!, ‘ • ECs118,
81111 TI IU;10r, 10 ICE ce(1:2P 8Ec1mmEri- 1108E Delp!, OA 1 lor: fir!T Hu go FUS lEk 10 '.868LE lo CHM/LE M.1108 110111
loolliC TO
TOP' or Flid.tb PARENT/ wAR111i.: olkt 0061■ 016:: OMER
LETE,:4Er I
VII 1 tkr_ CIIILDFE!.!•
1(31!.! !•!! 611156El: So( 1'
HEW( 01.0(11.AI8l
PRIOCE (1)8A80 IMAM)
soy4 sCoTIA
!kw eRIINSWICK
011E bEC
fliiTA810
8.4811086
SE;86TCHDIAH
6181816
88111511 COI UtieI6
ylmulu
Nub TOVE:r 11811 I TOft IES
Mint
90 60 8 - 2 1
Ii. 7 . - 1 -
1b3 89 15 - 6 9
95 61 3 - 1 11
1,512 1,011 222 56 2) 12
5,425 1,330 5 76 51 64
1, 152 546 318 46 lu 10
390 49 18 15 5
1.003 347 244 24 23 6
1,587 263 384 96 30 26
22 6 - . - -
35 13 - 10 - -
11,51! 3.784 1.217 271 152 139
10 ) 7 .
6 . 6 -
55 4 51 .
17 - 17 .
185 16 165 4
3,503 1. 152 2,321 30
29 17 12
167 lue 59
346 289 56 1
484 213 268 3
8 - 8 -
'I 1 6 .
2.976 lA
• 9 !!
9 2 1
3 1 - . 2
446 180 62 39 lE
19) 101 40 .
136 85 )4 1 1:
1) e . _
304 25 . .
- .
8 - .
. • 2
) . .
. ..
1,129 L.13 . .. 4, 817 1, Hirt
•••• /■
w„f•ti j fug, iv; ti I 11.11i10,' 011, , trufli
11 ..1firr wdrnirm:.)
.1, 11;:ne; Ploil.11,0111.: WI ill 1111 Ir.r.
I
L. _
'2 -
POI_ I CE ACTION_ FOR . JL'VE `i IL; ) IN CONFL . ICT_ WITH THE OW, CANAPA, ot CI MBI.R,. 1976
(PFRCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION)
---2.413/0
ioJ fr.—.
. i r I i .: I ; I 1.,r,./1. I t r.
I hcc colour.'
P.I.LTY .11i (.1lIlW`i 11.11 !CE
• j. '..11 1 .1 i.efe..E
:.1<111;;) iPME itT:Ç ; ME
.33
ti: i,IC1 i%) N (1N PERCENT) FOR JUV_I :.: .t ::
DURING DECEMBEI•t, 197b, ts'i t'1tvVIU^'::
IIIIIIII1IIIIIII
1•11•:1' i%CE:
'.,: I i s '_::^.
^•, i t ,^;• ,
,.^ i^ i i•.r in
t Î t.`T•^I '(i 1 IIT, â]
lo
CANADA TOTAL
POLICEu^r^'A'"•F'y-
4._'. T0 I• . • i^ ,^, ^. t; I.
ACT t
nIVF.I+'I'L•:D
WARPIï`JC,'
7!^.
41.:
6'3.5
81.5
26
70
17.2
4C^.R
z•, l'
Li3.4
11.I
35.3
30.1
17.9
12.2
64.6
2.5
42.8
14 . *)
'30.5
3E,.4
20.0
41
*"Other" includes: recommend no charge,institution, group home, foster home.
0.2
f3.2
16.8
34.9
1.3
19.2
36.4
14.3
.a..^
5 . ^T
8.2
12.6
6,0
2.6
5,7
J.1
.. . •T
9 . a
28.6
9.8
no action, and returned to
0T,ir'1\--
I
I
= = = = = = = m m = = = m m =
rAe1.£ t:•:
NUI•Ibf:K AHU f'Fkt'.EN'fnl:E CF JUVI:NILES CIi-kGED, WARSIF:C
ci^rr:.^.}-- , .._-- .-' • '• '-• ^- - -. ___. .._-----_-_ .... . . . ..^._.. --._----r---^--
îû.^. .•.---- -__._--lFin^-^-- :.F- -- _- - -----4 --iNC
MITki T47Ai. 9i:r 2.•4^ 431 231-: i v4j vCE 8%
.
23E. ;i
HALIFAX 9C 4v 501 37 411 5 6% 4 4t
QUEBEC CITY 124 59 v7^. 12 1Gt 1 it 52
MONTREAL 547 426 7dî 102 19% 1 ...^ 16 3é
OTTAWA/HULL 398 72 18% 231 50% 57 14% 36 10%
TORONTO 1560 357 • 23% 1132 72% 58 4% 13 ls
HAMILTON 409 70 17% 249 61% 67 16% 23 6b
LONDON 136 42 31% 92 67% 1 11 1 14
WINDSOR 63 13 20% 45 721 4 61 1 2%
WINNIPEG 678 521 77% - - 143 21% 14 2ti
CALGARY 266 254 96$ - - - - 12 [.E
EDMONTON 385 115 309. 260 67% 2 it 8 2E I
VANCOUVER 550--- 272 49% 159 29% 67 13% 52 : 9%
CHP.kIA b - rafer., to tl u-,• juvtri i] e5 c} ar y.;d ur, r^•commande ? to he chnrgtd. NARNFG - ref • r•s tu offender - only uart: in.+r„ >;aa •^ -RF.ICr!kf:p - ref^r•s to uclt.,r-! •tiwi,m y r.i'•rr,l:;, probation off uarr,iars nid other warnin•+.;.r.•.t,.rr.,l,., li„,I „nu. .vil,,[ r,•t[.rral^ au.i uU,rr r•lrrr.,. refers co ruucaamcndatioru no, to ,}.a :.,, ... act
and r,turr,,:.2 t,- an in st ' tut *ou.
. r.;: ,
\e•'raliro-J. .e rorcr
I:'tn :.,.r. •IrSec t t u•
.... :.. . .,rt Ln, • _icne
^Y•L+L- • ,lr: .,tr.
rlr..
`^na) Orti•.1n1. ^
• •.nt.l ^ne
PeSLn•^5'Jlltty
Final Dec/t10n -
SuprrrlSOry
ReSPonSlbilfly
6r..•t•a11ieJ
P. lce
Forte
tth lu.rn^!e
nlt^r l .Iln ; In-li.rattJ.. oftt•utL erlent•., KMI.n :urenilePrtrentlrC i ttftCmtl4 DetteCurtmmfty Pe , ►artla:ly by SVec-lat,ons 7rn9rk:' • IaltirJ toutn
tltl,ctrs
attisai Jor+ntleSection
Yllnout Jurrmlr
Section but will,Cousul ut I re
Sr,r vises
Investigations Of
Knurn Jurenlle
offcncrs Uone t•y
Rr,uIar ;ff. trrs
Final DeCISi41• -
Mt.ed Responslbtllty
(Internal l ftternal;
{Inal tktl4tonEar• nalPe.yuns•1•, Itty
. 1.
Pre:r•:ttr. x.nr t..
p•• - . •` ^ 'u• • •^rn a• ^ ^•P^:.n. =:cf:. -r., 1•_vVY^^ ^a.., ... ,.,y, _.. ^
lr Pro 110--
Po1lcraCriw^°aen\,e• , lPolice
/e[
- "l. !yty, lrral nr 10oA/1 UISnOSIt`n•!^C•^A.eflaDle -
1. Yaro•nqe (Yrrlr:, Yr:tten.
2Offelder Only, Parental;Gelerrals le.o. rOr YtluntaryGwnstl : r•^çjPolice lnitiatM R ?nlernallyBudqrte! nru•1w-> ',e.ç ïc:.•rta"Classes tor It•st 11rrnlr••.,Montrer t•rntat'^r. `
1 IP.n-PL:cr i ntliacee, t var:1:
run%ir•: nru•1rS f-qrJ•i,'•••• t^rSt•tn11Jr prn^•y:•, •.
I
,
I
f.) he . • • • • • I Number, of_j»venijes transferred to adult courts
per Maximum au e of jurisdiction, Canada, 1974-76.
Maximum age 1974 1975 1976 TOTAL
16 11 15 14 40
17 33' 6 • 35 74
18 60 . 112 102 • 274
I/ TOTAL 104 133 151 388
The provisions for transfer to adult court in the Young Offenders Act would differ frOM those in the Juvenile Delinquents Act in that stricter requirements would be prescribed, and that young people less than fourteen could be transferred if the motion of transfer is presented to the court with the approval of the provincial Attorney General.
* For the maximum age of jurisdiction currently in force in each province, see . Question No.13.
. .
I i
i
, ...
1 e
li 1 i
LIBRARY MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR
CCMCQ
11 MAR 12 190i .
BIBLIOTHEQUE MINISTÈRE Du SOU.klit,,K 3ÉNE1' 1AL
IRR A R Y MINildgY 0:- THE SC ir:Tno
Mr, 20 nu
818110THÈQUE MINISTÈRE DU ;.OLLICtiétiR GÉNÉRAL
SOLGEN CANADA LIB/BIBLIO
II I 11 I I 0000021895
I I
.. . , ! • - .'.. ; e'.....>1 I 9
' - '''. . • . t. J .15, :li ."..'A
• .
..• I
1III11I111I1I11II
DATE DUE
*rty »-•7
EE Conly, Dennis.9445 A proposed research andC65 evaluation strategy for1978 the Young Offendersc.2 Act.
I
