CHAPTER 13 Youth Justice - · PDF fileUnderstand why the Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed and the differences ... Before his trial, ... emphasis was on treatment rather than punishment.The

13CHAPTERYouth Justice

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

✓ Understand why the Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed and the differencesbetween the way it treated juveniles and the way the criminal justice systemtreated adults.

✓ Understand how the Young Offenders Act changed the nature of the juvenilejustice system in Canada.

✓ Identify the limitations of the Young Offenders Act and how the Youth CriminalJustice Act is trying to correct these issues.

✓ Understand youth crime trends and custodial rates since the Young OffendersAct was proclaimed in 1984.

✓ Identify how young offenders can appear in adult court.✓ Understand why the Youth Criminal Justice Act was passed and the changes it

has introduced to the youth justice system.✓ Explain why specialty courts have started to appear in the youth justice system.

his chapter discusses the criminal justice reaction to young offenders in Canada.Since the first decade of the twentieth century, Canada has had special laws for

processing and punishing young offenders. Over this time, there have been a number ofdebates over youth justice. For instance, who should be considered a “youth” in legalterms? And how different, if different at all, should the youth criminal justice system befrom the adult system? And, assuming that there should be a difference between theyouth and adult systems, what form should the youth justice system take? Anothermajor issue is appropriate punishments for youths. Should they be punished differentlyfrom adults? Should they be subject to the same sentencing philosophies as adults?Below, we review two appeals heard by the Supreme Court of Canada involving thesentencing of youths under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA); the purpose hereis to introduce some of the issues relating to the differences between youths and adultsin Canada’s justice system.

When the YCJA came into force in April 2003, it contained a new sentencingapproach for youths. By virtue of s. 50(1) of the YCJA, the provisions of the CriminalCode, with certain noted exceptions, do not apply to youths. For example, the words“deter” and “deterrence” are not found in the YCJA. They do not appear in the“Declaration of Principle” (s. 3), nor are they found in the “Purpose and Principles” listedunder s. 38, nor do we find them in the list of sanctions found in s. 42. In addition, “spe-cific deterrence” and “general deterrence” cannot be implied from any of these sections.

The issue of deterrence and whether sentencing judges in youth courts shouldconsider it a factor was addressed by the Supreme Court in two appeals (heard at thesame time) during the early summer of 2006. The central issue in both cases waswhether the YCJA includes the notion of deterrence, that is, “using the sentencingprocess to scare the individual and others of like mind from breaking the law” (Makin2006, A6). In both cases the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

T

NEL 1

One of these cases—R. v. B.W.P. (2006)—involveda youth from Manitoba who killed a young adult malewith a stocking-covered pool ball because he didn’t likethe way the 22-year-old victim was looking at two ofthe killer’s female friends. After the attack, the victimwas able to drive away; however, he died a short timelater. Before his trial, the accused spent 108 days in pre-trial custody. After pleading guilty to manslaughter, hewas sentenced to one day in custody and 15 months ofconditional supervision in the community, to be fol-lowed by one year of supervised probation. At issue inthis case was a disagreement between the judge and theCrown prosecutor. The prosecutor felt that the judgeshould have imposed a sentence that had the youthserving two-thirds of his sentence in custody and theremainder under supervision in the community. Thejudge stated that the YCJA gave him the discretion todetermine the appropriate length of custody and super-vision portions of the sentence. The Manitoba Court ofAppeal affirmed the decision of the sentencing judge.The Supreme Court agreed that the trial judge had beencorrect in his understanding of the sentencing philos-ophy of the YCJA.

In the second case—R. v. B.V.N. (2006)—a BritishColumbia youth was charged with “a vicious attack” pre-cipitated by a drug debt (Makin 2006). Before his trial,he had served 81 days in pretrial custody. He pleadedguilty to the charge of aggravated assault causing bodilyharm and was sentenced to a nine-month custody andsupervision order, with the custodial part of the order tobe served in close custody. The youth appealed the sen-tence, arguing that the judge had incorrectly factored ingeneral deterrence as part of the sentence. The BritishColumbia Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing deci-sion of the judge by saying that general deterrence is aconsideration, albeit a minor one, in determining appro-priate sentences under the YCJA. The Supreme Court ofCanada agreed with the youth, but dismissed his appealon the basis that general deterrence had not played asignificant role in the determination of the sentence.

YOUTH JUSTICE VERSUSCRIMINAL JUSTICEToday, youths between the ages of 12 and 17 are treatedseparately from adults in Canada’s criminal justice system.Police services typically have officers who specialize inyouth crime or have special units that deal exclusively withyoung offenders. Many youths who are arrested are neversent to youth court, but instead choose to participate inalternative-measure programs. A separate court—youth

court, with specialized judges and prosecutors—hearscases involving youths. And convicted youths serve theirterms of custody in institutions separate from those whichhouse adult offenders.

These differences are the result of historical viewsof youths and their behaviour in our society. At thebeginning of the twentieth century, some concernedgroups (referred to as child savers) argued that youngpeople should be treated differently from adults by thecriminal justice system. These groups thought thatyoung people who broke the law were themselvesvictims of neglect and improper care in the home. Whena youth broke the law, it was a sign that the parents hadlost control and that the state needed to intervene inorder to protect its interests. This led to the developmentof a separate criminal justice system that gave the statethe power to intervene in the lives of youths. This systemwas based on the legal philosophy of parens patriae—literally, the state as a parent.

Under parens patriae, provincial governmentspassed laws allowing them to intervene in the lives ofminors for actions deemed to be age specific (known asstatus offences—that is, they applied to young people ofa specific age status) and to incarcerate them in an insti-tution. Also, parents had the power to recommend to theprovincial authorities that their child be removed fromtheir residence and taken to a state-run institution. Forexample, in Ontario, female minors (i.e., female “chil-dren” under the age of 21) could be imprisoned underthe provincial Female Refuges Act, which stated that“any parent or guardian may bring before a judge anyfemale under the age of 21 years who proves unmanage-able or incorrigible” (Valpy 2002, A3).

The idea behind parens patriae was that youngpeople should be treated differently from adults by thecriminal justice system. The focus was not on punish-ment, but rather on helping young offenders learn tocontrol themselves so that they would stop engaging incriminal activities and become law-abiding citizens. Theemphasis was on treatment rather than punishment. Thelabel of “delinquent” was not to be used; youths were tobe treated not as criminals but rather as individuals whoneeded special consideration from the state.

Youths who were seen as requiring punishmentwere often placed in custodial facilities referred toas “institutional reformatories.” Many of these werechurch-run. These institutions were generally located onthe outskirts of urban areas or in rural towns, away fromthe negative influences that had led the youths intoquestionable conduct. Most, if not all, were designed toprovide the appropriate role models that it was assumedthese youths lacked. Conditions were usually harsh; theinhabitants were often forced to work for most of the

Criminal Justice in Canada NEL2

day and were refused newspapers, writing materials, andother means for remaining in contact with the outsideworld.

The first laws in Canada that formalized thenotion of parens patriae were enacted in Ontario in 1893.This legislation was titled An Act for the Prevention ofCruelty to, and Better Protection of Children; it was alsoreferred to as the Children’s Charter (Sutherland 1976).Canada enacted its first piece of federal juvenile legisla-tion (the Juvenile Delinquents Act) in 1908.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act ( JDA) stated thatin order for a youth to be considered delinquent, he orshe had to break a law and be punished in a special courtthat heard only cases involving youths—that is, in juve-nile court. Delinquency was defined on the basis of age.No child or youth could be held legally responsiblefor his or her actions before the age of 7. The provinceswere allowed to select the upper age limit, and the agesselected ranged from 14 to 17. A delinquent act wasdefined as any violation of a federal, provincial, ormunicipal law for which the punishment was a fine orimprisonment or a term in an industrial school or areformatory (Bell 1999).

Under parens patriae, delinquent acts were notconsidered criminal, nor were delinquents consideredcriminals. Children who violated the law could not befound guilty of a criminal act and would not be treatedas adults. Instead, juvenile proceedings—more informalthan adult criminal proceedings—were designed toestablish whether the child in question needed treat-ment. The legal theory of parens patriae “recognizes thatchildren who violate the law are in need of the same careand treatment as are law-abiding citizens who cannotcare for themselves and require state intervention intotheir lives” (Siegel and Senna 1997, 19).

Considerable discretion was built into the opera-tions of the juvenile courts in order to establish a treat-ment focus. Also, certain changes were made in howjuvenile courts operated relative to adult courts. Forexample, the term petition was substituted for criminalcomplaint, trials became hearings, and pleas became trueor not true rather than guilty or not guilty. Hearingswere held in private in order to protect the reputation ofthe accused, and the rules of due process used to guideadult court procedural issues were dispensed with.Judges were granted considerable discretionary powerto determine the appropriateness of testimony and evi-dence without being challenged on the grounds that theproceedings were illegal. They were also given a widerange of sentencing dispositions, which gave them agreat deal of power to make decisions in the best inter-ests of the child—the power, essentially, of a “pseudo-parent” (Leschied 1995).

Between the first decade of the twentieth centuryand the late 1960s, the JDA and the juvenile courtsoperated with little change. One significant alterationwas made in 1924, however, when the JDA was revisedto include more offences within its purview. This revi-sion created status offences—that is, juveniles could bearrested and referred to juvenile court and even institu-tionalized for activities not considered criminal foradults, such as truancy, incorrigibility, running awayfrom home, violating a curfew law, purchasing ordrinking alcoholic beverages, and engaging in varioussexual activities.

Furthermore, a delinquent was redefined as “anychild who violates any provision of the Criminal Code orof any bylaw or ordinance of any municipality, or who isguilty of sexual immorality or any similar form of vice, orwho is liable by reason of any other act to be committedto an industrial school or juvenile reformatory under theprovisions of any Dominion or provincial statute” (West1991, 33).

In the 1960s and 1970s, criticisms of the JDAforced the federal government to re-evaluate this legisla-tion. Some argued that the Act lacked sufficient crimecontrol policies and due process protections. In 1967, adraft piece of legislation titled the Children’s and YoungPersons Act was published to facilitate discussion aboutchanging the JDA. This draft was followed in 1970 byBill C-192 (An Act Respecting Young Offenders and toRepeal the JDA); this bill, however, never passed theHouse of Commons. In 1975, a report titled YoungPersons in Conflict with the Law made recommendationsabout the future of Canada’s juvenile justice system. Twoyears later, in 1977, Highlights of Proposed New Legislationfor Young Offenders was issued by the federal solicitorgeneral. The Young Offenders Act was passed in 1982and came into force on April 2, 1984.

Four pressing concerns led to the demise of theJDA. The first was the rising rate of juvenile delin-quency, which was largely seen to be the result of theineffectiveness of the JDA. Critics pointed out that ajuvenile typically had to commit several offences beforefacing a juvenile court hearing. They argued that thesolution was longer sentences and greater accountabilityfor those involved in the juvenile justice system. Asecond major criticism focused on the extensive discre-tionary power that the JDA granted juvenile courts.

The third criticism of the JDA concerned the issueof net-widening—specifically, the belief that the pro-grams it espoused tended to push youths deeper into thejuvenile system instead of solving the root problems ofjuvenile offending. The JDA was criticized for in effectencouraging the authorities to assume that offendersneeded more help as they progressed through the various

NEL CHAPTER 13 Youth Justice 3

stages of the juvenile justice system. Because of this, thelevel of state intervention escalated accordingly. Thefourth criticism was the high cost of operating juvenilecourts. In the 1960s, the costs of operating the criminaljustice system as a whole were beginning to skyrocket.Governments were seeking ways to save money andviewed criticisms of the JDA as ideas that could lead tosavings. One such idea was that the system should inter-vene as little as possible in the lives of youths. The bookRadical Nonintervention (1973), by Edwin Schur, caughtthe attention of governments, especially its argumentthat youths processed through the juvenile court systemare stigmatized. Schur’s solution to this problem was todivert as many offenders out of the juvenile system aspossible, decrease the reliance on juvenile custodial insti-tutions, and decriminalize status offences. All of thesecriticisms helped bring about the demise of the JDA.

The strongest criticism of all, though, was thatyouths lacked those due process protections that werereadily available to adults. More specifically, youths couldnot secure defence counsel, evidentiary standards wereoften lacking, and few treatment programs were available.As a result of this particular criticism, juvenile justicestarted to change. Gradually it became less discretionaryand more concerned about the legal rights of youths.

These changes were hastened by the introductionof the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.Questions were raised about the applicability of theCharter to youths in conflict with the law. So when theYoung Offenders Act (YOA) was passed, it emphasizedthe justice model (see Chapter 3) at the expense of therehabilitation of young people. The YOA focused on

the due process rights of the accused, including theunderstanding that youth courts would limit themselvesto the trying of young people who had been chargedwith violating the law and to introducing due processsafeguards. To achieve these goals, the YOA containedfour guiding principles: (1) young people must assumeresponsibility for their illegal behaviour; (2) society hasa right to protection from illegal behaviour; (3) youthsare entitled to traditional legal rights and some addi-tional protections; and (4) young people, because theyare by definition not mature, have special needs andshould not be held accountable in the same manner orto the same extent as adults.

Between 1984 and 1997, considerable debatesurrounded the YOA, with the result that significantchanges were introduced, notably to sanctions and to theprocedures for transferring juvenile offenders to adultcourts (see Table 13.1). In 1986, the first amendmentswere made to the YOA; these strengthened its deter-rence aspects. These changes came about as a result ofintensive lobbying efforts by the police, provincialAttorneys General, and some federal politicians whobelieved that the YOA was too soft. These amendmentsincreased youth court sentences for murder, introducedvictim impact statements into youth courts, and imposedconditional supervision following an order of custodywhenever a judge felt that stricter controls were neces-sary for the benefit of the youth or the protection of thepublic. Also, the police were now allowed to access juve-nile records for investigative purposes, and the names ofyoung suspects at large could be published with the per-mission of the court.


TABLE 13.1 Chronology of Canada’s Youth Justice Legislation

1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act: child welfare approach, with significant judicial discretion.1984 Young Offenders Act (YOA): emphasis on youth responsibility, protection of society, special rights, and youth needs.1986 Amendments to YOA: technical amendments to custody placements; changes to enhance police powers.1992 Amendments to YOA: increased maximum sentence from three to five years for murder; clarified rules for transferring

youths to adult court.1995 Amendments to YOA: increased maximum sentence to ten years for murder; created presumption of transfer for 16-

and 17-year-olds charged with serious violent offences to adult court.1996 (August) Federal–Provincial–Territorial Task Force on Youth Justice Report: reviewed the YOA and made recommendations,

some of which contradicted the recommendations made by the standing committee report referred to the House ofCommons, which recommended allowing victim impact statements in court as well as information sharing among youthjustice professionals.

1997 (April) Review of the YOA report referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs forconsideration.

1997 (August) Review of the youth justice system: 14 recommendations made.1997 (August) Meeting of First Ministers: with exception of Quebec, called for meaningful amendments to the YOA committed

to improving preventive and rehabilitative programs for young offenders.1997 (December) Proposed amendments to the YOA.1998 (May) Federal Youth Justice Strategy announced.2003 (April) Youth Criminal Justice Act introduced.

Source: Dell 1999,46.

Other criticisms concerning the YOA were madeover the ensuing years. Dell (1999) divides these intothree categories: first, the insufficient attention given topreventing youths from engaging in criminal activity;second, the inadequate measures for dealing with themost violent offenders and offences; and third, thesystem’s too-heavy reliance on custody as a response toyouth crime.

Finally, in 1998, the Federal Youth Justice Strategywas announced. It had three broad aims: (1) to addressthe limitations of the YOA; (2) to reform the youth jus-tice system and legislation; and (3) to address the rootcauses of youth crime. This led to the introduction of theYouth Criminal Justice Act in 2003.

THE YOUTH CRIMINALJUSTICE ACTOn May 29, 2001, Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal JusticeAct, was passed by Parliament. It would replace the YOAin April 2003. This legislation, the result of years of gesta-tion, reflected longstanding criticisms of the YOA, in partfrom those who argued that the YOA placed too muchemphasis on custody as a response to youth crime and thatit largely ignored other intervention approaches (e.g., reha-bilitation) that might be more effective, meaningful, andfacilitative in terms of showing young offenders the impactof their crimes on victims and communities. In addition,there was concern that the YOA’s approach was failing toinstill basic values such as respect for others, responsibility,and accountability. There was also concern about thesteady increase in the number of repeat offenders whowere committing violent offences.

In 1996, the federal justice minister had asked theStanding Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to con-duct a review of the YOA and the youth justice system. Asa result of this review, a new youth justice strategy wasproposed. The preamble to the proposed Act mentionedthe hope that the new legislation would reduce “the over-reliance on incarceration for nonviolent offenders.”

In addition, the new strategy recognized theimportance of rehabilitation and reintegration (seeChapter 12). Public protection, however, would con-tinue to be the primary goal of the youth justice system(see Exhibit 13.1). The proposed legislation would alsorecognize the importance of addressing specificoffenders, such as repeat offenders who commit violentoffences, and of taking a broader, integrated approachinvolving prevention, alternatives to the courts, and newapproaches to punishment.

To carry out this new strategy, three complemen-tary areas were focused on:

• Prevention. The need to address the root causes of crime,support youth, encourage community efforts to reducecrime, promote crime prevention, and introduce effec-tive alternatives to the formal youth justice system.

• Meaningful consequences for youth crime. The need forspecific measures for violent and repeat offenders, inorder to help young offenders understand the impactof their actions and allow them to make good on theharm done to victims and the community.

• Intensified rehabilitation. The need for measures forviolent and repeat young offenders that are more firm,more controlling, and more effective in providingtreatment as well as support for rehabilitation and rein-tegration. While this approach would be applied to allyoung offenders, it would be particularly important toviolent young offenders.

This led to an extensive reworking of the youthjustice system. Today, the youth justice system involves agreater use of alternatives at each stage in the hope thatmore youths will stay in the community and not repeattheir criminal acts.

The YCJA incorporated a number of significantchanges. For example, the Statement of Principles andObjectives of the YOA was found to be unclear and some-times self-contradictory. The new legislation included astatement of principles and objectives that declared firmlythat the protection of society was to be the main goal of allcriminal law, including youth justice law.

The new statement also made it clear that preven-tion, responsibility, and rehabilitation are essential andcomplementary components of a youth justice system ifthat system is to protect the public. This statementincluded sections specifying that youths were to be heldaccountable for their actions, that they were to be treateddifferently from adults, and that violent youths were tobe treated differently from non-violent youths.

The YCJA as it stands today contains severalmeasures that address the problem of violent and repeatyoung offenders, including the age and range of offencesthat can lead to a youth’s having his or her case heard inadult court. In addition, a special sentencing option isnow available to judges when they consider the disposi-tion of the most violent and high-risk youths. This smallgroup of offenders may require a combination of longerperiods of supervised control as well as intensiverehabilitation programs that deal with the risk they poseto society.

The YCJA also now provides for a broader rangeof community-based sentences that emphasize responsi-bility to the victim and community. Similar clauses arefound in the area of alternative measures, reflecting thefederal government’s hope that alternatives such aspolice cautioning, diversion programs, and restorative


justice programs will become more effective and efficientas responses to some youth crime (see Exhibit 13.1).

TRENDS IN YOUTH CRIMEAmong the most commonly held beliefs about youthcrime in Canada today are that

• it is increasing dramatically;• more serious violent crimes are being committed by

youths;

• youths are involved in crime at an earlier age;• youths receive lenient sentences; and• the number of youths charged by the police is increasing.

These beliefs are not necessarily true. While theyouth crime rate in 2006 increased by 3 percent com-pared to 2005, youth crime was 6 percent lowercompared to a decade ago and 25 percent below thepeak year of 1991. In the past 10 years, the youthcrime rate has fluctuated—between 1999 and 2003,the youth crime rate gradually increased, and then


EXHIBIT 13.1 The Principles of Sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act

Section 3.(1) The following principles apply inthis Act:

a. the youth criminal justice system is intended to:i. prevent crime by addressing the circum-

stances underlying a young person’soffending behaviour.

ii. rehabilitate young persons who commitoffences and reintegrate them intosociety, and

iii. ensure that a young person is subject tomeaningful consequences for his or heroffence in order to promote the longterm protection of the public;

b. the criminal justice system for young personsmust be separate from that of adults andemphasize the following:i. rehabilitation and reintegration,ii. fair and proportionate accountability that

is consistent with the greater dependencysentencing of young persons and theirreduced level of maturity,

iii. enhanced procedural protection to ensurethat young persons are treated fairly andthat their rights, including their right toprivacy, are protected,

iv. timely intervention that reinforces thelink between offending behaviour and itsconsequences, and

v. the promptness and speed with whichpersons responsible for enforcing thisAct must act, given the young persons’perception of time;

c. within the limits of fair and proportionateaccountability, the measures taken againstyoung persons who commit offences shouldi. reinforce respect for societal values,ii. encourage the repair of harm done to

victims and the community,iii. be meaningful to the individual young

person given his or her needs and level of

development and, where appropriate,involve the parents, the extended family,the community and social or other agen-cies in the young person’s rehabilitationand reintegration, and

iv. respect gender, ethnic, cultural and lin-guistic differences and respond to theneeds of aboriginal young persons and ofyoung persons with special requirements,and

d. special considerations apply in respect ofproceedings against young persons and, inparticular,i. young persons have rights and freedoms

in their own right, such as a right to beheard in the course of and to participatein the processes, other than the decisionto prosecute, that lead to decisions thataffect them, and young persons havespecial guarantees of their rights andfreedoms,

ii. victims should be treated with courtesy,compassion and respect for their dignityand privacy and should suffer the min-imum degree of inconvenience as a resultof their involvement with the youthcriminal justice system,

iii. victims should be provided with informa-tion about the proceedings and given anopportunity to participate and be heard,and

iv. parents should be informed of measuresor proceedings involving their childrenand encouraged to support them inaddressing their offending behaviour.

(2) This Act shall be liberally construed so asto ensure that young persons are dealt within accordance with the principles set out insubsection (1).

Source: Justice Canada.

decreased until 2006 (see Figure 13.1) (Taylor-Buttsand Bressan 2008).

In 2006, violent crime represented almost 25 per-cent of all youth crime, a 3 percent increase from 2005.The youth crime rate increased during 2006 for the mostserious violent crime offences: homicide (17 percent),robbery (8 percent), and assaults level 1 and 2 (both3 percent). Decreases were recorded for most otheroffences, including attempted murder (–6 percent) andsexual assaults (–6 percent). The number of youthscharged with property crimes decreased by 3 percent in2006 from the previous year. The largest decreases werein theft over $5,000 (–26 percent), breaking and entering(–10 percent), and theft–other (–4 percent). Possession ofstolen goods was the only offence in this category to seea rate increase (8 percent). The rate of “Other CriminalCode” offences increased by 9 percent in 2006, thoughthere were decreases in the rates of prostitution (–40percent) and counterfeiting currency (–23 percent). Thelargest increases were recorded in disturbing the peace(14 percent) and mischief (12 percent).

The actual number of youths charged with violentcrimes (such as homicide, attempted murder, and sexualassault levels 2 and 3) was much lower compared to thenumber charged with crimes involving minimal violencesuch as “minor assault” and property crime. Overall, in2006, 83 youths were charged with a homicide, 69 withattempted murder, 20 with sexual assault level 2, and 2with sexual assault level 3. In comparison, 14,160 were

charged with assault level 1, 4,779 with assault level 2,and 3,704 with robbery (ibid.).

Sprott (1996) points out that the media may beresponsible for the perception that youth crime isincreasing. She studied all reports of youth crime pub-lished in three Toronto daily newspapers over a period oftwo months and reported that 94 percent of the storiesfeatured violent criminal activity. Yet the CanadianCentre for Justice Statistics reported that, of the youthcases heard in Ontario during 1995, only 22 percent ofthe principal charges involved a violent crime.

Sinclair and Dell (1999), using national statisticsbetween 1992 and 1997, found that while the number ofyouths charged by the police consistently decreased (a trendthat continued until 2000, when there was an increase of1.4 percent), these significant decreases were rarely notedby the media, which preferred to focus on the more extremeviolent acts committed by youths. And according toresearch conducted by Lee and Leonard (1995, 1), the“phenomenon of serious youth violence is actually soinfrequent that it tends to elude statistical analysis.”Similarly, Moyer (1996, 2) concluded from her analysis that“the type of offences which result in system involvementshows that the vast majority of juvenile criminal behaviorinvolved is not, by any definition, very serious in nature.”

There has been much discussion in recent yearsabout increasing rates of violent crime committed byyoung female offenders. Dell and Boe (1997) analyzeddata on female young offenders between 1992 and 1996and found no evidence of an increase in the number offemale young offenders charged by the police. Theyreported that the national rate of violent crime amongfemale youths remained constant during this period, at44 charges per 10,000 female youths. This rate was one-third that of charges against young males for violentcrimes. More recently, Taylor-Butts and Bressan (2008)reported that in 2006–07 the proportion of maleyouth involved in property (38 percent) and violent (49percent) crimes and who were formally charged ratherthan being dealt with through other means was greaterthan for female youth apprehended for these types ofcrimes (28 percent and 41 percent, respectively). Thenumber of males youth accused of robbery and breakand enter and who faced charges for these two offenceswas approximately twice that of the number of femaleyouth apprehended for these crimes.

Youth Court CaseloadsAn indicator commonly used to measure youth crime inCanada is the caseloads of youth courts in each provinceand territory. Thus, the caseload trends presented in thischapter reflect courts’ responses to youth crime ratherthan the actual prevalence of criminal activity among


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1997 2000 2003 2006

Youth charged – total CriminalCode offences (excluding traffic)

Youth cleared otherwise –total Criminal Code offences(excluding traffic)

Introduction of the YCJARa

te p

er 1

00,0

00 Y

outh

¹

FIGURE 13.1Rates of Youth Formally Charged Down While ThoseCleared Otherwise Up Since Introduction of the YouthCriminal Justice Act (YCJA)

1. Youth aged 12 to 17.Source: Andrea Taylor-Butts and Angela Bressan, “YouthCrime in Canada, 2006”, Juristat, Vol. 28, no. 3, p. 5.Statistics Canada catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. ReleasedMay 2008.


EXHIBIT 13.2 The Legal Rights of Youths: Search and Seizure

R. V. M.(M.R.) (1998)An issue connected with search and seizure(see Chapter 2) is the right of school officials andpolice to search students and their possessions onschool property. If authorities feel that a studentis violating the law, that student’s locker may besearched. But is it possible for school officials tosearch and seize illegal items from a student’slocker without a warrant? And are such casesunreasonable and therefore in violation of rightsaccorded the student by the Charter of Rightsand Freedoms?

FACTS OF THE CASEThe vice principal of a junior high school in NovaScotia was advised by students that a 13-year-oldstudent was planning to sell drugs that night onschool property during a school dance. The viceprincipal asked the individual in question and hiscompanion to report to the office, where he askedeach if he was in the possession of drugs andadvised them that he was going to search them.A plainclothes RCMP officer, who had been calledby the vice principal in accordance with schoolpolicy, was present but said nothing while the viceprincipal spoke to the students and searched them.The vice principal seized a bag of marijuana fromone of the students and gave it to the RCMP officer.The officer advised the youth he was under arrestfor possession of marijuana. The police officer readthe youth his police caution and advised him of hisright to legal counsel, as well as his right to contacta parent or adult. The accused tried unsuccessfullyto telephone his mother and informed the officerthat he did not wish to contact anyone else. Theofficer and the accused then proceeded to theaccused’s locker, which the officer searched. Theofficer discovered no illegal item in it.

The trial judge concluded that the vice prin-cipal was acting as an agent of the police andheld that the search violated the accused’s rightto be free from unreasonable search and seizureunder s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.He excluded the evidence found in the search,and since the prosecution offered no other evi-dence, the charge against the accused was dis-missed. The verdict was appealed. The NovaScotia Court of Appeal allowed the appealand ordered a new trial. At his second trial, theyouth was convicted. He then appealed to theSupreme Court of Canada.

DECISIONIn an 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court ofCanada held that the appeal should be dismissed.

It held that the prohibition against illegal searchand seizure applies to school officials as well as tolaw enforcement officials. Teachers are not merelysubstitute parents but agents of the state whoare required to carry out state policy and law.Students do not give up their constitutional rightswhen they walk onto school property, and in thecase of a search, students have the right to pri-vacy with respect to one’s person and shouldexpect that privacy.

However, this reasonable expectation ofprivacy may be diminished in some circumstances.This expectation is lower for a student at schoolthan it would be in some other circumstances, sincestudents know that teachers and school authoritiesare responsible for providing a safe environmentand maintaining order and discipline within theschool. According to the Supreme Court, the pos-session of drugs and dangerous weapons chal-lenges the ability of school officials to carry outtheir responsibilities. School officials have to beable to respond quickly and reasonably—and thismay involve school officials searching students andseizing prohibited items. Where the criminal law isinvolved, evidence found by a teacher or otherschool official should not be excluded because thesearch would have been unreasonable if conductedby the police.

According to the majority of the SupremeCourt justices, the requirement of a warrant orsome other form of prior authorization would beimpractical and unworkable in the school environ-ment. Teachers must be able to act quickly to dealwith problems as they arise in school in order toprotect their students and to maintain the orderlyatmosphere required for learning. Whether thesearch of a student is justifiable should depend onits reasonableness, on the scope of the search, onthe age and sex of the student, and on the behav-iour that prompted it. In view of this standard,the vice principal’s search was justified, becausethe report he had received created a reasonablesuspicion that the student had marijuana in hispossession.

The Supreme Court of Canada outlined theapproach to be taken by teachers when consid-ering searches:

1. A warrant is not essential in order to conducta search of a student by a school authority.

2. The school authority must have reasonablegrounds to believe that there has been abreach of school regulations or discipline andthat a search of a student would reveal evi-dence of that breach.

youths. Since 1992–93, the number of cases heard inyouth courts in Canada has generally been decreasing.There was a slight increase in 2005–06 (+0.3 percent).The overall caseload in 2005–06 was 26 percent lowercompared to 2002–03, the year prior to the enactment ofthe Youth Criminal Justice Act (see Figure 13.2).

In 2003–04 (the first year after the YCJA wasimplemented), youth courts in Canada processed 70,465cases involving 191,302 charges. This was a 17 percentdecrease in youth court caseloads since 2002–03 and a33 percent decrease since 1991–92 (see Figure 13.2). In2006–07, youth courts processed 56,463 cases involving179,873 charges (Thomas 2008).

The types of cases most often processed throughyouth courts during 2006–07 involved the categories ofcrimes against property (31.6 percent) and crimes against

persons (26.8 percent). The next highest categoriesinvolved cases against the administration of justice(8.8 percent) and “Other Criminal Code” (7.9 percent).A small number of the offences heard in youth courtsaccount for the largest proportion of caseloads (see Figure13.3). The ten most common offences accounted for 75percent of caseloads. The three most common propertyoffences heard in youth courts were theft (13.6 percent),break and enter (9.0 percent), and possession of stolenproperty (6.2 percent). As Table 13.2 illustrates, since1991–92 all categories of offences heard in youth courthave declined. Overall, youth court cases involving prop-erty crimes declined by 32 percent between 2002–03 and2006–07. While crimes against the person were 5 percenthigher in 2006–07 compared to 1991–92,Table 13.2 indi-cates they were 18 percent lower in 2006–07 compared to


EXHIBIT 13.2 The Legal Rights of Youths: Search and Seizure . . . Continued

3. The school authorities are in the best positionto assess information given to them and relateit to the situation existing in their school.Courts should recognize the preferred positionof school authorities in determining whetherreasonable grounds existed for the search.

4. A number of reasons may constitute reason-able grounds in this context:(a) Information received from a student

considered to be credible.(b) Information received from more than one

student.

(c) A teacher’s or principal’s own observations.(d) A combination of any of the above pieces

of information that the relevant authorityconsiders to be credible.

In addition, the compelling nature of the infor-mation and the credibility of the sources must beassessed by the school authority in the context ofthe circumstances existing in the particular school.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled thatall searches must be conducted “in a sensitivemanner and be minimally intrusive.”

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1991/1992 1994/1995 1997/1998 2000/2001 2003/2004 2006/2007

Fiscal Year

Num

ber o

f Cas

es

Total Youth Court Cases

Total Crimes Against Property Cases

Total Crimes Against the Person Cases

Total Other Federal Statutes Cases

FIGURE 13.2Substantial Declines in Youth Court Following the Enactment of the YCJA

Source: Jennifer Thomas, “Youth Court Statistics, 2006/2007”, Juristat, Vol. 28, no. 4, p. 2. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Released May 2008.

2002–03. In addition, compared to 2002–03, in 2006–07there were 34 percent fewer federal statute cases and 17percent fewer administration of justice cases.

Compared to 2002–03, there was almost a 26 per-cent decrease in the total number of cases heard in youthcourts in 2006–07 �25.9 percent). The largest declineswere in the categories of crimes against property (–32.1percent), crimes against the person (�18.0 percent), andthe administration of justice (�16.5 percent). Thesmallest decline was found in the category of “OtherCriminal Code” (�4.6 percent) (see Table 13.2).

Almost 27 percent of all youth court cases during2006–07 involved violent crimes. Almost 40 percent ofthe violent crime category involved minor assaults (37.5percent), followed by major assaults (22.7 percent), androbbery and uttering threats (both 14.7 percent).Homicide and attempted murder accounted for less than1 percent of all youth crimes heard in youth courts inCanada.

Older youths are more likely to appear in youthcourt. During 2006–07, 16-year-old youths accountedfor 26.3 percent of all youth court cases, and 17-year-oldsfor 29.5 percent. Accused persons aged 15 years wereresponsible for 20.8 percent of all youth court cases, whileindividuals aged 12, 13, and 14 accounted for 2.4 percent,6.1 percent, and 12.8 percent of all cases, respectively.Youths 16 and 17 years old were responsible for almost56 percent of all cases heard in youth courts for the year.They accounted for 50.5 percent of all crimes against theperson offences cases heard in youth court in 2006–07,as well as 52.4 percent of all property crimes, and59.3 percent of all administration of justice offences

(ibid.). In 2006–07, 12- and 13-year-olds were morelikely to be involved in crimes against persons, whereas14- and 15-year-olds were most likely to be processedthrough youth court for cases involving crimes againstpersons and the administration of justice, respectively.

Youth Court Decisions andDispositionsSixty percent of all cases heard in youth courts in 2006–07ended in a conviction. Of the remaining cases, proceedingswere withdrawn or dismissed in 22 percent, 16 percentwere stayed, and 1 percent of cases ended in an acquittal(see Table 13.3). Some provincial variation exists in thetotal number of cases heard in youth court that result in aconviction, from a low of 46 percent in Yukon to a high of88 percent in New Brunswick. These differences can beexplained in part by variations in charging practices.According to Thomas (2008), the higher proportions ofcases stayed and withdrawn in certain provinces in partreflect charges set aside pending the successful completionof alternative-measure programs. Table 13.3 reveals thatmore than half of all cases were stayed, withdrawn, ordismissed in Yukon and 42 percent in Saskatchewan,compared to 11 percent in New Brunswick and 23 percentin Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, pre-charge screening by the Crown (which is the policy isBritish Columbia, Quebec, and New Brunswick) may leadto a reduction of cases heard.

In 2006–07, the most common disposition in allyouth court cases was probation (59 percent), a decline


3.9

6.1

6.2

6.2

6.9

8.5

9.0

10.1

13.6

4.3

0 2 864 10 12 14 16

Robbery

Drug Possession

Major Assault

Fail to Comply with Order

Possess Stolen Property

Mischief

Break and Enter

Common Assault

Theft

Percentage of Cases

YCJA/YOA

These 10 offences = 74.8% oftotal youth court casesN = 56,463

FIGURE 13.3Ten Offences Accounted for Three-Quarters of the Youth Court Caseload in 2006–2007

Note: YCJA/YOA offences are primarily the failure to comply with a disposition.Source: Jennifer Thomas, “Youth Court Statistics, 2006/2007”, Juristat, Vol. 28, no. 4, p. 3. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Released May 2008.

from 2002–03 when probation was used in 70 percentof all dispositions. Probation was most often usedfor convictions involving crimes against persons (68percent), crimes against property (63 percent), and“Other Criminal Code” offences (61 percent). Probationwas often ordered in cases involving attempted murder(83 percent), “other sexual offences” (78 percent), sexualassault (78 percent), drug trafficking (74 percent), breakand enter (73 percent), and robbery (73 percent).Twentypercent of cases with a probation sentence were for aperiod of 6 months or less, 51 percent ranged between6 months to12 months, and 23 percent were for a periodexceeding 12 months.

Consistent with the objectives of the YCJA, feweryouths are being sentenced to custody. In 2006–07,5,640 (about 17 percent) of all guilty cases resulted in acustodial sentence. In comparison, in 2002–03, 13,246(or 27 percent) of all guilty cases involved a custodialsentence. During 2006–07, 16.6 percent of all guiltycases were sentenced to custody. Community serviceorders were used in 23.8 percent and fines in 5.5 percentof all guilty cases. “Other” sentences, which includedeferred custody and supervision, intensive support and

supervision, attendance at a non-residential program,restitution, and conditional or absolute discharge,accounted for 34.3 percent of all guilty cases.

Extrajudicial MeasuresThe YCJA provides a framework for a number of meas-ures besides youth court proceedings for responding toyouth crime (see Figures 13.4, 13.5, 13.6, and 13.7, andExhibit 13.3). These extrajudicial measures are thoughtto be more appropriate for responding to less seriousyouth crime. They include the following:

• measures based on police discretion, such as warnings,cautions, and referrals to community programs;

• cautions by Crown attorneys, and• extrajudicial sanctions, which are more formal extraju-

dicial measures (see below).

These measures were introduced by the YCJAbecause research has shown that measures that keepyouths who have committed less serious crimes outsideof formal court proceedings can be more effective inreducing the amount of their criminal activity. One of


TABLE 13.2 Cases Heard in Youth Courts, Canada, 2002/2003 to 2006/2007

Percentage change from 2002/2003 to

Offence category 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2006/2007

Total casesNumber 76,153 64,002 57,588 56,271 56,463 …Percentage change in the number of cases1 … �16.0 �10.0 �2.3 0.3 �25.9Crimes against the personNumber 18,446 16,716 15,127 15,166 15,126 …Percentage change in the number of cases1 … �9.4 �9.5 0.3 �0.3 �18.0Crimes against propertyNumber 31,359 25,532 22,722 21,552 21,279 …Percentage change in the number of cases1 … �18.6 �11.0 �5.3 �1.1 �32.1Administration of justiceNumber 5,924 5,186 4,904 4,793 4,945 …Percentage change in the number of cases1 … �12.5 �5.4 �2.3 3.2 �16.5Other Criminal Code offencesNumber 4,686 4,457 4,200 4,348 4,471 …Percentage change in the number of cases1 … �4.9 �5.8 3.5 2.8 �4.6Criminal Code trafficNumber 1,329 1,216 1,136 1,049 1,086 …Percentage change in the number of cases1 … �8.5 �6.6 �7.7 3.5 �18.3Other federal statuteNumber 14,409 10,895 9,499 9,393 9,556 …Percentage change in the number of cases1 … �24.4 �12.8 �1.1 1.7 �33.7

… not applicable1Refers to the previous year.Source: Jennifer Thomas, “Youth Court Statistics, 2006/2007”, Juristat, Vol. 28, no. 4, p. 11. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. ReleasedMay 2008.

the main objectives of the YCJA is to increase the use ofeffective non-court responses to less serious offencescommitted by youths. The YCJA provides that extraju-dicial measures can and should be used for any offence,including more serious offences, if the measures areconsidered adequate enough to hold youths responsiblefor their offending behaviour and if the use of thosemeasures is consistent with the principles of the YCJA.

One of the arguments in favour of the YCJA wasthat many cases could be dealt with effectively outside theyouth court process. Under the YOA, for example, morethan 40 percent of the cases heard in youth court were foroffences considered less serious, such as the following:

• theft under $5,000 (e.g., shoplifting);• possession of stolen property;• failure to appear in court; and• failure to comply with a disposition (e.g., breach of a

condition of probation).

In addition, it was shown that almost all youths suc-cessfully completed their alternative measures program

under the YOA. It was also found that youth court judgesfelt that many of the cases they heard could be dealt withmore successfully outside of the formal court process.Doob (2001), in his national survey of youth court judges,reported that 54 percent of them felt that at least half thecases coming before them could have been dealt with justas adequately or more adequately outside of youth court.

Note that although alternative measures wereavailable under the YOA, this legislation offered littleguidance as to the appropriate use of these measures. Norwas there much guidance as to the types of alternativesand what their objectives should be. The YCJA containsmany provisions that offer better legislative direction.These provisions are intended to do the following:

• increase the use of non-court measures for less seriouscases;

• reduce the use of youth courts for less serious cases;• enable the youth courts to focus on more serious cases;• provide support to the police in their exercise of

discretion; and


TABLE 13.3 Cases Before Youth Court by Type of Decision, Canada, Provinces and Territories, 2006/2007

Decision

Total Withdrawn/Cases Found Guilty1 Acquittal Stayed Dismissed Other2

Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Canada 56,463 34,065 60 727 1.3 9,098 16.1 12,196 21.6 377 0.7

Newfoundland and Labrador3 738 563 76 2 0.3 61 8.3 107 14.5 5 0.7

Prince Edward Island 209 153 73 0 0.0 55 26.3 1 0.5 0 0.0

Nova Scotia 1,798 1,118 62 39 2.2 48 2.7 585 32.5 8 0.4New Brunswick 1,174 1,035 88 6 0.5 0 0.0 127 10.8 6 0.5Quebec4 6,653 4,761 72 366 5.5 1,083 16.3 429 6.4 14 0.2Ontario 25,102 13,833 55 112 0.4 3,723 14.8 7,268 29.0 166 0.7Manitoba 3,076 2,051 67 9 0.3 1,013 32.9 3 0.1 0 0.0Saskatchewan 5,165 2,945 57 30 0.6 535 10.4 1,637 31.7 18 0.3Alberta 8,016 4,496 56 58 0.7 1,434 17.9 1,910 23.8 118 1.5British 4,065 2,811 69 102 2.5 1,077 26.5 45 1.1 30 0.7ColumbiaYukon 90 41 46 1 1.1 19 21.1 27 30.0 2 2.2Northwest

Territories 186 131 70 0 0.0 19 10.2 34 18.3 2 1.1Nunavut5 191 127 66 2 1.0 31 16.2 23 12.0 8 4.2

0 true zero or a value rounded to zero1Found guilty decisions include absolute and conditional discharges.2Other decisions include transferred to another province/territory, unfit to stand trial and not guilty by reason of insanity.3In Newfoundland and Labrador, the terms “acquittal” and “dismissed” are used interchangeably.4The number of acquittals may be over-reported due to administrative practices.5Total case counts maybe be underreported for Nunavut, as there may be charge and case information from remote areas that is entered into theircaseload management system several months after sending their data submission for the Youth Court Survey.

Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100.Source: Jennifer Thomas, “Youth Court Statistics, 2006/2007”, Juristat,Vol. 28, no. 4, p. 15. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Released May 2008.

• reorient the system’s approach to non-court measuresso that they are viewed as the normal, expected, andmost appropriate response to less serious offending byyouth.

YOUTH CUSTODYAs mentioned earlier, one of the main concerns about theYOA was that it resorted to custody too often. Todecrease the use of custody, the YCJA does not allow ayoung person to be sentenced to custody unless he or shehas committed a serious violent crime, has not compliedwith a non-custodial sentence, has committed anindictable offence for which an adult would be liable forimprisonment for more than two years, and has a historyindicating a pattern of findings of guilt, or in exceptionalcircumstances where the youth has committed anindictable offence and a non-custodial sentence would beinconsistent with the act’s purposes and principles of sen-tencing (Calverley 2006). Admissions to custody have

declined from about 25,000 admissions in 1999–2000 to13,246 in 2002–03, to 5,640 in 2006–07 (see Table 13.4).

Under the YCJA, the use of custody has decreasedin Canada. Since the implementation of the YCJA, therate of youth admitted to sentenced custody has beendeclining . In 2007–08, the rate of youths entering sen-tenced youth custody declined by 5 percent from theprevious year, and 30 percent from 2003–04. Among the11 jurisdictions reporting their youth custody rates in2007–08,the rate of youth admitted to secure custodydeclined 6 percent between 2006–07 and 2007–08,while the rate of youths admitted to open custodydecreased by 4 percent (Kong 2009). Since 2003–04, thenumber of youths admitted to sentenced custody forproperty offences has decreased by over 50 percent,while the number of youths entering sentenced custodyfor violent offences has declined by 12 percent. During2007–08, 39 percent of youths admitted to sentencedcustody were convicted of violent offences and 27 per-cent for property crimes. In contrast, during 2003–04,29 percent of youths admitted to sentenced custody were


FromExtrajudicial

MeasuresModule

Young personis charged

Young personis found guilty

CHART 3Parent of YP

does not attend

ToYouth Sentencing

ORAdult Sentences

Extrajudicialsanction applied

Young person isfound not guilty

YP is detained by policeSee Pretrial Detention

CHART 1Extrajudicial sanctionmay be considered

CHART 4Plea and determinationof guilt or innocence

CHART 2YP makes appearance

before youth justice courtjudge or justice

Crown notice of intentionto seek adult sentenceSee Adult Sentences

END

END

FIGURE 13.4YCJA, Sections 23–27, 32–37, Judicial Measures—Summary Diagram


admitted as a result of violent crimes and 36 percent forcommitting property crimes (see Table 13.5).

Prior to the implementation of the YCJA, admis-sions to both secure and open custody had beendeclining, in part due to a declining youth crime rate butalso due to an increasing emphasis on diversion (or alter-native measures) programs. From 2003–04 to 2007–08,admissions to secure custody across Canada declined by67 percent while admissions to open custody declined by46 percent. All jurisdictions in Canada except Yukon andthe Northwest Territories a decrease in the numberof admissions to secure custody between 2003–04and 2007–08; the declines ranged from 49 percentin Saskatchewan to 10 percent in New Brunswick.Admissions to open custody decreased in all jurisdictionswith the exception of Nova Scotia (�12 percent) andQuebec (�2 percent) (ibid.).

The proportion of youths serving between one andsix months in custody increased from 27 percent2002–03 to 43 percent in 2006–07. The number ofyouths sentenced to a period of one month or less was 46percent while 7 percent were for longer than six months


FromExtrajudicial Measures

orJudicial Measures

module

Young person not otherwise released is charged and broughtbefore YJC judge or justice.

Depending on the offence charged, YJC judge or justice is to releaseor detain YP before trial unless cause is shown why not.

ToJudicial Measures

Module

YES – RP is availableand YP willing to be

placed in care

YJC judge or justiceorders release

YJC judge or justiceis satisfied that YPshould be detained

NO – RP not availableor YP not willing to be

placed in care

CHART 1Show cause hearingDeciding whether to

detain or release

CHART 3Judge or justice ordersYP detained in custody:placement on detention

CHART 2Judge or justice must inquire

about responsible person:is one available and is YPwilling to be placed in his

or her care?

FIGURE 13.5YCJA, Sections 28–31, Criminal Code, Part XVI—Summary Diagram


FromJudicial Measures

orAdult Sentences

modules

CHART 1Court determines

and imposesappropriate youth

sentence

Non-custodial orderYP serves and

completes sentencein community

YP has been foundguilty of an offence

Order involvingcustody

ToCustody andSupervision

module

CHART 2Review of non-

custodial sentence:YJC confirms orvaries sentence

END

FIGURE 13.6YCJA, Sections 38–60—Summary Diagram


(Thomas 2008). According to Calverley (2006, 5), thischange can perhaps be explained by the YCJA’s emphasison reducing the use of incarceration for less seriousoffences, so that only more serious offenders receive cus-tody sentences; sentences for these youths tend to belonger than before.

Before the YCJA was introduced, the proportionof female youths sentenced to custody had been gradu-ally increasing, from 16 percent in 1999–2000 to 20 per-cent in 2002–03. In the year following theimplementation of the YCJA, however, this upwardtrend reversed itself, and the percentage of female youthssentenced to custody decreased to 16 percent. In2007–08, 17 percent of all female youths admittedto correctional services were sentenced to custody(see Table 13.6). This decline between 2002–03 and

2007–08 has been attributed to the fact that the types ofcrimes committed by female youths are less serious thanthose committed by male youths; as a result, under theYCJA more female youths have been diverted or sen-tenced to community supervision.

As noted earlier, in its principles of sentencing theYCJA states that “all available sanctions other than cus-tody that are reasonable in the circumstances should beconsidered for all young persons, with particular atten-tion to the circumstances of Aboriginal young persons”(s. 38[2][d]). However, since the implementation of theYCJA, the number of Aboriginal youth has increasedslightly. Among admissions to remand, increases in therepresentation of Aboriginal youths in both Manitobaand Alberta increased the overall representation from 23percent in 2004–05 to 25 percent in 2007–08. For


YP is charged

END

END

NOTE: Extrajudicial measures may alsobe considered after charges have been laid.Charges may then be withdrawn, stayed, or

proceeded with, depending on the circumstances

Police officer must firstconsider:• taking no further action• warning YP• cautioning YP• referring YP

CHART 2

CHART 3Police officer should next

consider the use of anextrajudicial sanction

Should extrajudicialmeasures not be adequateto deal with the incident,

the police officer may decideto lay a charge

Should extrajudicial measures notbe adequate to deal with the incident,the police officer may choose to refer

the matter to a Crown prosecutor

Should extrajudicial measuresnot be adequate to deal with theincident, the Crown may decide

to lay a charge

Police officer hasreasonable grounds tobelieve young person

has committed offence

END

ToJudicial Measures

module

CHART 1

The Crown may:• caution the YP• use an extrajudicial sanction• follow a pre-charge screening program in place in jurisdiction

FIGURE 13.7YCJA, Sections 4–14, Extrajudicial Measures—Summary Diagram


admission to both sentenced custody and probation,the representation of Aboriginal youths increased from28 percent and 18 percent in 2003–04 to 33 percent and21 percent, respectively, in 2007–08 (see Table 13.7).

Another weakness of the YOA for some was thatit failed to ensure that youths are effectively reintegratedinto the community after being released from custody.The YCJA includes many provisions to assist a youth’s


TABLE 13.4 Guilty Youth Cases Sentenced to Custody, Canada, Provinces and Territories,2002/2003 to 2006/2007

2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005

Total Guilty Cases Total Guilty Cases Total Guilty CasesGuilty Sentenced Guilty Sentenced Guilty SentencedCases to Custody Cases to Custody Cases to Custody

Number Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Number Percent

Canada 48,169 13,246 26.9 39,323 8,683 22.1 35,865 7,578 21.1

Newfoundland and Labrador 1,049 403 38.4 855 184 21.5 759 174 22.9

Prince Edward Island 185 73 39.5 117 23 19.7 94 15 16.0Nova Scotia 1,341 438 32.7 1,106 150 14.8 888 117 13.2New Brunswick 1,374 355 25.8 1,027 235 22.9 1,009 210 20.8Quebec 5,824 1,236 21.2 5,330 845 15.9 5,082 777 15.3Ontario 21,344 6,013 28.2 16,407 4,589 28.0 15,314 4,059 26.5Manitoba 2,413 628 26.0 2,089 334 16.0 1,900 299 15.7Saskatchewan 3,801 1,180 31.0 2,788 732 26.3 2,746 586 21.3Alberta 6,803 1,313 19.3 5,869 752 12.8 4,587 600 13.1British Columbia 4,532 1,429 31.5 3,483 767 22.0 3,070 660 21.5Yukon 64 31 48.4 44 13 29.5 32 8 25.0Northwest Territories1 273 107 39.2 157 30 19.1 246 40 16.3Nunavut 166 40 24.1 141 29 20.6 138 33 23.9

2005/2006 2006/2007 Percentage PercentageChange in Point ChangeNumber of in Proportion

Cases Guilty CasesReceiving in Receiving

Total Guilty Cases Total Guilty Cases Custody CustodyGuilty Sentenced Guilty Sentenced 2002/2003 2002/2003 Cases to Custody Cases to Custody to 2006/2007 to2006/2007

number number percent number number percent percentage percentage

Canada 34,628 6,355 18.4 34,065 5,640 16.6 �57.4 �10.4

Newfoundland and Labrador 608 121 19.9 563 104 18.5 �74.2 �19.9

Prince Edward Island 129 22 17.1 153 26 17.0 �64.4 �22.5Nova Scotia 985 112 11.4 1,118 153 13.7 �65.1 �19.0New Brunswick 1,065 174 16.3 1,035 170 16.4 �52.1 �9.4Quebec 4,936 559 11.3 4,761 498 10.5 �59.7 �10.8Ontario 14,418 3,446 23.9 13,833 2,880 20.8 �52.1 �7.4Manitoba 1,983 173 8.7 2,051 164 8.0 �73.9 �18.0Saskatchewan 2,718 489 18.0 2,945 498 16.9 �57.8 �14.1Alberta 4,502 554 12.3 4,496 557 12.4 �57.6 �6.9British Columbia 2,923 622 21.3 2,811 525 18.7 �63.3 �12.9Yukon 35 15 42.9 41 14 34.1 �54.8 �14.3Northwest Territories1 174 34 19.5 131 29 22.1 �72.9 �17.1Nunavut 152 34 22.4 127 22 17.3 �45.0 �6.8

1From 2004/2005 to 2006/2007, for the Northwest Territories, the number of custody orders have been under-reported and the number of probationorders have been over-reported by unknown amounts due to clerical procedures. The majority of custody orders were captured as probation.Source: Statistics Canada, Juristat, Catalogue 85-002, Youth Court Statistics, 2006/2007, Vol. 28, No. 4, Table 10, Released July 31, 2009.http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008004/article/tbl/tbl10-eng.htm


TABLE 13.5 Rate of Admissions of Youth to Total Sentenced Custody (Secure and Open), by Province and Territory, 2003/2004 to 2007/2008

2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Change in rate Change in rate 2006/2007 to from 2003/2004

2007/2008 to 2007/2008Rate per Rate per 10,000 10,000

Province and Territory youth Number youth Percent

Newfoundland and Labrador 34 31 25 26 53 14 �46 �59Prince Edward Island 16 ... ... ... ... ... ... ...Nova Scotia 21 18 20 23 158 22 �1 5New Brunswick 42 46 42 33 178 32 �4 �24Quebec 19 16 23 14 959 16 17 �14Ontario 25 22 18 15 1,435 14 �7 �44Manitoba 37 37 36 37 315 31 �17 �24Saskatchewan 53 41 31 36 305 35 �3 �35Alberta 27 27 30 24 567 20 �17 �24British Columbia 17 18 15 13 443 14 3 �21Yukon 56 42 32 48 16 60 26 7Northwest Territories 90 124 124 104 28 67 �36 �26Nunavut 64 87 84 42 ... ... ... ...Adjusted total1 25 23 22 18 4,457 17 �5 �301Due to missing data for some years, Prince Edward Island and Nunavut have been excluded from “Adjusted total”.Note: Percentage changes are based on unrounded rates.Source: Statistics Canada, Juristat, Catalogue 85-002, Youth custody and community services in Canada, 2007/2008, Vol. 29, No. 2, Table 5, ReleasedMay 13, 2009. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009002/article/10846/tbl/tbl05-eng.htm

TABLE 13.6 Proportion of Youth Admitted to Correctional Services Who Were Female, by Province and Territory, 2003/2004 to 2007/2008

Remand1 Sentenced custody2 Probation3

2004/2005 2007/2008 2003/2004 2007/2008 2003/2004 2007/2008Province and Territory Percent

Newfoundland and Labrador 19 26 19 15 19 19Prince Edward Island .. .. 16 .. .. ..Nova Scotia 11 24 7 22 17 ..New Brunswick 16 16 23 21 15 21Quebec .. .. .. .. .. ..Ontario 21 20 17 15 21 23Manitoba 20 22 11 10 29 27Saskatchewan .. .. 11 13 24 26Alberta 22 18 11 17 19 21British Columbia 24 24 20 24 25 28Yukon 0 22 0 38 30 20Northwest Territories 26 40 29 25 .. 37Nunavut 0 .. 8 .. .. ..Adjusted total 21 20 16 17 22 241Total excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Nunavut.2Total excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Nunavut.3Total excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.Note: The earliest reference year for remand is 2004/2005 rather than 2003/2004 (first year of implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act) as2003/2004 data for Ontario were incomplete. Percentages are based on total offences excluding unknowns.Source: Statistics Canada, Juristat, Catalogue 85-002, Youth custody and community services in Canada, 2007/2008, Vol. 29, No. 2, Table 7, ReleasedMay 13, 2009. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009002/article/10846/tbl/tbl07-eng.htm

reintegration into the community after release fromcustody. One of the principles of the new legislation isthat youths can be rehabilitated and successfully reinte-grated into the community. The focus of every custodialsentence now has to be on reintegration and on measuresaimed at helping young people avoid re-offending.

The YCJA now requires that youth workers drawup a plan with youths for their reintegration back intothe community at the time they enter custody. Also,youth workers are expected to supervise and providesupport for youths who are serving the community por-tion of their sentences.

COMMUNITY SUPERVISIONThe YOA provided for alternative measures. Youngpeople “who would otherwise proceed to court are dealtwith through non-judicial, community-based alterna-tives” (Kowalski 1999, 1). These programs—whichinclude personal service to a victim, financial compensa-tion, community service, personal or written apologies,and educational sessions—were designed to divert

young offenders out of youth court who had beenaccused of less serious offences, allowing them to keep aclean record. At the same time, though, alternativemeasures hold youths accountable for their actions.These programs are also used to reduce the number ofyouths flowing through the youth court system.

Alternative measures have diverted many casesfrom youth court. In 2002–03, community service wasthe most common type of alternative measure used inCanada, accounting for 30 percent of all such measures.The next most common alternative measures were anapology to the victim (17 percent) and social skillsimprovement (15 percent). Eighty-six percent of allyouths successfully completed all of the measures statedin their agreements (Reitano 2004). Alternative meas-ures were not continued by the YCJA; instead, it intro-duced a greater range of diversionary measures (seeExhibit 13.4).

When the YCJA was introduced, extrajudicialsanctions replaced alternative measures. These sanc-tions are intended for more serious offences andoffenders than would be dealt with by a warning or areferral. A formal set of rules applies to extrajudicial


TABLE 13.7 Proportion of Youth Admitted to Correctional Services Who Were Aboriginal, by Province and Territory, 2003/2004 and 2007/2008

Remand1 Sentenced Custody2 Probation3 Youth Population in2006 Who Were

Aboriginal2004/2005 2007/2008 2003/2004 2007/2008 2003/2004 2007/2008 (12 to 17 years)

Province and Territory Percent

Newfoundland and 7 2 7 6 6 2 7Prince Edward Island .. .. .. .. .. .. 2LabradorNova Scotia 10 9 6 5 6 .. 4New Brunswick 9 8 6 11 8 8 4Quebec .. .. .. .. .. .. 2Ontario 9 9 10 14 6 7 3Manitoba 74 82 80 84 56 61 23Saskatchewan .. .. 79 79 65 65 24Alberta 37 41 39 39 29 33 9British Columbia 36 29 34 36 29 14 8Yukon 87 87 100 81 75 73 33Northwest Territories 92 82 92 93 .. 87 65Nunavut 100 .. 100 .. .. .. 95Adjusted total 23 25 28 33 18 21 61Total excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Nunavut.2Total excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Nunavut.3Total excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Northwest Territories and Nunavut.Note: The earliest reference year for remand is 2004/2005 rather than 2003/2004 (first year of implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act)as 2003/2004 data for Ontario were incomplete. Percentages are based on total offences excluding unknowns.Source: Statistics Canada, Juristat, Catalogue 85-002, Youth custody and community services in Canada, 2007/2008, Vol. 29, No. 2, Table 8, ReleasedMay 13, 2009. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009002/article/10846/tbl/tbl08-eng.htm

sanctions, which may be used only in the following cir-cumstances:

• Other extrajudicial measures may not be appropriate.Section 10 of the YCJA provides that an extrajudicialsanction may be used only if the youth cannot be dealtwith adequately by another type of extrajudicial measuresuch as an informal warning or a police caution.

• The program is found in the jurisdiction. An extrajudi-cial sanction may only be used if it is part of a programauthorized by the government of the jurisdiction.

• It is appropriate. The person considering using the sanc-tion must believe that it would be appropriate, given theneeds of the youth and the interests of society.

• The youth provides informed consent. The youth musthave been informed about the sanction, have beenadvised of his or her right to legal counsel, have beengiven an opportunity to consult legal counsel, andthen have consented to its use.

• The youth accepts responsibility. The young person musthave accepted responsibility for the act or omissionthat formed the basis of the offence. An extrajudicialsanction cannot be used if the youth denies involve-ment in the offence or wishes to have the charge dealtwith by the youth court.

• There is sufficient evidence to proceed. The Crown mustbelieve there is sufficient evidence to proceed with acharge, and the prosecution must not be barred.

Every custodial sentence has to be followed by aperiod of supervision in the community. This includescustody and supervision orders, as well as intensive reha-bilitation and supervision orders. When imposing a cus-todial sentence, judges must state clearly in open courtthe portion of the sentence to be served in custody andthe portion to be served in the community.

The YCJA contains a list of mandatory conditionsthat apply to all youths while they are under communitysupervision. Additional conditions can be imposed tosupport youths and better address their needs as well asto better manage the risks they pose.

In addition, if a youth breaches a condition whileunder supervision in the community, a review is to beheld that can lead to a change in conditions or to theyouth being returned to custody. If the provincialauthorities order a youth to be returned to custody, thecourt will conduct a review. If the court is satisfied thatthe youth has breached a condition, it may order theyouth to serve the remainder of the community portionin custody if the breach was serious. If the breach was


EXHIBIT 13.3 Legislative Attempts to Control Serious Violence Among Youth: Bill C-37

In 1995, concerns about youth violence and thepublic perception that the YOA was soft onviolent crime led the federal government to intro-duce amendments. These amendments culminatedin the passing of Bill C-37, a key component ofwhich was the introduction of longer sentencesdesigned to protect the public and provide greatersupervision over young offenders convicted ofcommitting violent crime. Bill C-37 places the onuson the young person, his or her counsel, or theAttorney General to show why a case of seriousviolence should proceed in youth court. If a con-vincing case cannot be made, cases of murder orattempted murder, manslaughter, or aggravatedsexual assault are automatically heard in adultcourt if the offender was 16 or 17 years of age atthe time of the offence.

If the case is not transferred to adult courtand a conviction is secured:

• for first degree murder, the maximum sen-tence is ten years, of which a maximum of sixyears is to be served in custody and theremainder on conditional supervision;

• for second degree murder, the maximum sen-tence is seven years, comprising four years in

custody and the remainder on conditionalsupervision; and

• for first or second degree murder, the youngperson has the option of electing trial before ayouth court judge or trial by Superior CriminalCourt judge and jury. If an election is notmade, the election will have been deemed tobe Superior Court.

If the case is heard in adult court and theaccused is:

• convicted of first or second degree murderand under 16, the penalty is life imprisonmentwithout parole for between five and sevenyears, or five years if the judge does not setparole ineligibility;

• 16 or 17 and the offence is first degreemurder, the penalty is life without parole forten years, and

• 16 or 17 and the offence is second degreemurder, the penalty is life with no parole forseven years.

Source: Marinelli, J. 2002. Youth Custody and CommunityServices in Canada, 2000/01. Ottawa: Canadian Centre forJustice Statistics.

not serious, the court may vary the conditions or imposenew conditions.

The YCJA also states that it is possible that a youthmay not serve a portion of his or her sentence in thecommunity following custody. Before the communityportion begins, the court can require the youth to remainin custody if it is satisfied that there are reasonablegrounds to believe that the young person will commit anoffence or serious harm before the end of the sentence.

In the first year after the YCJA was implemented,admissions to probation by youths across Canadadecreased to 15,003 in 2003–04 from 22,734 in 2002–03.

The number of guilty youth court cases has continued todecline: in 2006–07, there were only 6,249 sentencesinvolving probation. However, it should be pointed outthat probation continues to be the most frequently orderedsentence for youths, with 59 percent of all guilty youths in2006–07 receiving this sentence (Thomas 2008). Thisdecline in the use of probation under the YCJA may inpart be due to the fact that under the YOA, youth custodysentences were oftentimes followed by a period of proba-tion in order to ensure that some form of supervision wasrequired when a youth was reintegrated into the commu-nity. Under the YCJA, all youth custody sentences contain


EXHIBIT 13.4 The Purpose of Sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act

Under the Young Offenders Act, judges were notgiven explicit sentencing principles, nor were theyoffered much practical guidance as to the philos-ophy underlying the sentencing of youngoffenders. Instead, the YOA contained a generalDeclaration of Principles that was of little help tojudges in determining sentences. Like adult sen-tencing before it (which was affected by Bill C-41in 1996), the YCJA “represents further evidence ofParliament’s intention to circumscribe and directjudicial discretion at the stage of sentencing”(Roberts 2003):

38.(1)The purpose of sentencing under s. 42(youth sentences) is to hold a young personaccountable for an offence through theimposition of just sanctions that have mean-ingful consequences for the young personand that promote his or her rehabilitationand reintegration into society, thereby con-tributing to the long-term protection of thepublic.

38.(2)A youth justice court that imposes a youthsentence on a young person shall determinethe sentence in accordance with the princi-ples set out in section 3 and the followingprinciples:

(a) the sentence must not result in a punish-ment that is greater than the punish-ment that would be appropriate for anadult who has been convicted of thesame offence committed in similar cir-cumstances;

(b) the sentence must be similar to thesentences imposed in the region on sim-ilar young persons found guilty ofthe same offence committed in similarcircumstances;

(c) the sentence must be proportionate tothe seriousness of the offence and the

degree of responsibility of the youngperson for that offence;

(d) all available sanctions other than custodythat are reasonable in the circumstancesshould be considered for all young personswith particular attention to the circum-stances of aboriginal young persons; and

(e) subject to paragraph (c), the sentencemust

i. be the least restrictive sentence that iscapable of achieving the purpose set outin subsection (1),

ii. be the one that is most likely to rehabili-tate the young person and reintegratehim or her into society, and

iii. promote a sense of responsibility in theyoung person, and an acknowledgementof the harm done to victims and thecommunity.

Subsection 38(3) lists the factors to be consideredin determining a youth sentence:38.(3) In determining a youth sentence, the

youth justice court shall take into account:

(a) the degree of participation by the youngperson in the commission of an offence;

(b) the harm done to victims and whether itwas intentional or reasonably foreseeable;

(c) any reparation made by the youngperson to the victim or the community;

(d) the time spent in detention by the youngperson as a result of the offence;

(e) the previous findings of guilt of theyoung person; and

(f) any other aggravating and mitigating cir-cumstances related to the young person orthe offences that are relevant to the pur-pose and principles set out in this section.


a mandatory period of supervision on release built into thesentence. In addition, some cases may have received pro-bation under the YOA are now receiving a type of extraju-dicial measure under the YCJA.

During 2006–07, the largest proportion of admis-sions to probation (often in combination with other typesof sentences) was for crimes against property (68 percent).Another 63 percent of admissions to probation were forcrimes against the person (63 percent). Sixty-one percentwere for “Other Criminal Code” offences, and 43 percentof the sentences in the category of “Administration ofJustice” involved probation. Twenty percent of all proba-tion sentences cases were for a period of 6 months or less,while 51 percent ranged from more than 6 months to 12months, and 23 percent were for more than 12 months.Some were for other offences, such as drug-relatedoffences and YCJA-related offences.

YCJA SentencesSince the YCJA was enacted, the extent of communitycorrections has increased with the introduction of newcommunity-supervised sentences, such as deferred custodyand supervision and the intensive support and supervisionprogram (ISSP). The YCJA also introduced a mandatoryfinal-one-third period of community supervision as part ofmost custody and supervision orders (s. 42 [2][n]).

Deferred custody allows a youth to serve a custodysentence in the community under a number of strict con-ditions. The availability of this sentence may have con-tributed to the decline in sentenced custody admissions.Any breach of the conditions may result in the youth beingsent to custody. In 2003–04, there were 1,077 admissionsto deferred custody across Canada. In 2006–07, there were1,080 admissions to deferred custody.

The ISSP is designed to allow for closer moni-toring and support of a youth offender than probation.This is an optional program, meaning that it may not beimplemented very often. Four jurisdictions (Alberta,Yukon, Quebec, and the Northwest Territories) reportedISSP data in 2003–04; they used this program a total of106 times, while in 2006–07, there were 347 guilty casesinvolving this sentence.

A History of Transferring Youthsto Adult Court in CanadaIn recent years, there has been much concern about violentcrimes committed by youths. This concern has led todemands that some youths be sentenced as adults. It hasbeen argued that placing an offending youth in a juvenilefacility is often not a deterrent and that the best way to dealwith many situations is to transfer the youth to adult court.

Many people think that juveniles transferred toadult courts have committed violent crimes, but this isnot always the case. Between 1999 and 2001, almost 40percent of transfers to adult court were for non-violentoffences. In addition, some argue that the transferprocess is too cumbersome and leads to significant delaysin hearing cases. Others consider the process unfair, sincethe transfer occurs before the court determines whetherthe young person is guilty of an offence.

What is the impact of transferring juveniles to adultcourt? Most of the empirical studies have reported on theAmerican experience. One consistent finding has beenthat each year in the United States more than 10,000youths are transferred to adult court. Most of these youthshave been charged not with violent crimes but withproperty and public (e.g., drug and alcohol) offences.Most of these youths plead guilty in adult court, and mostare more likely to receive a probation sentence than aperiod of confinement. In addition, it takes more thantwo-and-a-half times as long to process a transfer casethrough the adult legal process than to hear a case inyouth court. Finally, the belief that youths transferred toadult court will receive better treatment is not always wellfounded; most youths finish their sentence withoutreceiving any treatment at all (Fagan 1995; Feld 1987).

Under the YOA (as it was enacted in 1984), s. 16specified that a youth could be transferred to adult courtprovided that various criteria were met. Two of the mostimportant were (1) the youth must be at least 14 yearsold at the time of the alleged offence; and (2) the crimemust have been a serious indictable offence such asmurder, manslaughter, armed robbery, break and enter,or sexual assault. The youth court was further directed bys. 16(2) to take into account the following factors:

(a) the seriousness of the offence and the circum-stances in which it was allegedly committed;

(b) the age, maturity, character, and background ofthe young person, including previous findings ofcriminal activity and guilt;

(c) the adequacy of the Young Offenders Act andthe adequacy of the Criminal Code to meet thecircumstances of the case;

(d) the availability of treatment or correctionalresources;

(e) any representations made to the court by or onbehalf of the young person or the prosecution; and

(f ) any other factors that the court consideredrelevant—issues such as mental illness, involve-ment of the accused with others, and so on.

The transfer to adult court was not automatic.When serious charges were brought before youth court,the legislation required the youth court judge, before


hearing any plea, to ask the Crown prosecutor and thedefence counsel if they wished to have the case transferredto adult court. If the prosecutor agreed but the defencelawyer disagreed, a special transfer hearing was thenscheduled. During this special hearing, the prosecutionhad to present evidence to support the argument that thetransfer was necessary for two reasons: the protection ofsociety and the best interests of the accused.

Under the original provisions of the YOA, a youthcould serve a sentence handed down in adult court in ayouth facility until the age of 21, but only with theapproval of the provincial director of corrections. Somejudges were reluctant to send youths to the adult courtsbecause of the possibility of longer sentences and the pos-sibility that they might have to serve most if not all theirsentence in an adult correctional facility. In the decade fol-lowing the introduction of the YOA, these issues wereconstantly highlighted. As a result, considerable variationarose among provinces in terms of their use of juveniletransfers. Manitoba and Alberta had relatively hightransfer rates; the rest of the provinces and territories hadlow rates. This discrepancy has been explained as a func-tion of whether provinces chose to emphasize “the pro-tection of society,” as Manitoba and Alberta did, or “theneeds of the young person” (Bala 1994).

During the 1990s, changes were made to laws gov-erning transfer hearings. The first changes occurred in1992, when amendments were made to s. 16 of the YOA.These amendments specified, among other things, thelength of time a youth convicted of murder could servebefore being eligible for parole. A youth who was trans-ferred to adult court and found guilty of first degree murderwould serve a maximum of ten years before becomingeligible for parole. If convicted of second degree murder, theyouth would become eligible for parole in five years. Inaddition, youths convicted of crimes in adult court wouldbe allowed to serve their sentence in a youth facility unlessit was felt that doing so would create public safety issues.

In 1995, the law governing transfers to adult courtwas changed again. The amendments specified that 16-and 17-year-olds charged with murder, manslaughter,attempted murder, or aggravated sexual assault were tobe tried in adult court unless an application was grantedto enable the case to be heard in youth court (see Exhibit13.3). If an application was made to have the case heardin youth court, it was up to the youth to show that theobjectives of protection of the public and the best inter-ests of the youth could be met in a youth facility. If, inthe opinion of the youth court judge, both objectivescould not be met satisfactorily, the protection of thepublic would remain paramount and the youth would betried in adult court.

In 1999, a number of recommendations were madeto amend the YOA with regard to transferring youths to

adult court. Perhaps the most dramatic of these was for thetransfer process to be eliminated altogether. Instead, itwould be determined first whether the youth was in factguilty of the offence; if he or she was, then in certaincircumstances the youth court could impose an adult sen-tence. In other words, the decision to apply adult sentencesto a young offender would be made after the trial duringwhich the young offender was found guilty. Prosecutorswould be required to indicate before the trial started thatthey intended to seek an adult sentence. The youngoffender would then elect to be tried either in provincialyouth court, or by a Superior Court judge alone, or by aSuperior Court judge with a jury. Whichever court waschosen, the full range of adult sentences would be availableto the sentencing judge following conviction.

Another recommendation was that the range ofyoung offenders who could be tried in adult court beexpanded to include repeat young offenders with a pat-tern of convictions for serious violent offences. Yetanother recommendation was that the age limit be low-ered to include 14- and 15-year-olds.

Under the YCJA as it now stands, youth courtsmay impose an adult sentence on a youth offender whenthe youth sentence for a given offence would not holdthat youth accountable for his or her criminal conduct.An adult sentence can be considered if the offence car-ries a maximum sentence of more than two years inadult court and if the youth was 14 or older when theoffence was committed. All jurisdictions in Canadahave the option to increase the minimum age to 16years. For youths charged with first or second degreemurder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or aggravatedsexual assault, and for youths who have committed aviolent offence and who have been found guilty on atleast two other occasions of serious violent offences, thepresumption is that adult sentencing will apply. In thesecases, the burden is on the convicted youth to show thata youth sentence would be more appropriate. For allother cases, the presumption is that youth sentencingwill apply. In all of Canada in 2003–04, only eight caseswere transferred to adult court, and all of these pro-ceedings had started under the legislative authority ofthe YOA.

ALTERNATIVE CUSTODIALFACILITIES FOR YOUTHS

Boot Camps (Shock Incarceration)The increased interest in boot camps reflects the patternof development for other intermediate punishmentsdescribed by Morris and Tonry (1990). As with other


intermediate punishments, a few supporters were able toestablish boot camps as an experiment, and the initialevaluations, which reported lower recidivism rates, gen-erated much interest. As a result, in the ten years afterthe first boot camp was opened—in Georgia in 1983—36 states began to operate boot camps (MacKenzie1994, 1). They proliferated during the 1980s and early1990s. By 1995, there were 123 boot camps in theUnited States. After the mid-1990s, the number of bootcamps began to fall, and by 2000, only 51 boot campswere still operating. By then, the number of participantsin the remaining boot camps had declined by over30 percent.

Boot camps are different in a number of ways fromother correctional institutions such as wilderness camps.First, they emphasize a highly structured environment,with military drills, physical training, and hard labour.Second, the program targets young people (usuallymales) between 16 and 24 who have been convicted ofnon-violent offences and who do not already have longcriminal records. Third, the length of time served rangesfrom three to six months, with the average stay beingaround 4.5 months.

Boot camps have evolved over time, with researchfindings shaping later boot camp policies and proce-dures. The early boot camps emphasized military disci-pline, training, and hard work. In this type of boot camp,the participants are typically awakened as early as 4 a.m.They dress in uniforms and exercise for an hour beforebreakfast. They attend school classes until 11 a.m., whenlunch is served. More physical training follows, thendormitory clean-up and counselling sessions. Afterdinner at 4:30 p.m., more counselling is provided. At7 P.M., a variety of organized sports are played. An houris reserved for personal activities such as washing andwriting letters. Television is available at this time, butonly programs considered educational are permitted.Lights are out at 9:30 p.m. The same routine is followedall week except on Sundays, when inmates are allowedvisitors for three hours in the afternoon.

All boot camps share a military approach to dis-cipline; however, during the late 1980s and early 1990s,programs began to vary widely regarding their otherprogram components. These variations are based ondifferent ideas about how the program can achieve thedesired goals. Most second-generation boot campsintroduced rehabilitation-type programs with compo-nents such as alcohol and drug treatment. A bit lateron, some boot camps added intensive post-releasesupervision programs, as well as electronic monitoringand home confinement. MacKenzie and Ballow (1995)studied 11 different boot camp programs and reportedvariations in the number of participants, the number ofdays served, placement authority, type of program

entry and exit (voluntary or forced), and the type andamount of counselling offered to program participants.Other variations related to location (i.e., whether theparticipants were housed in part of a larger prison or ina separate facility), intensity of release supervision, andtype of aftercare during community programs. Theresearchers concluded that no unified, “model” bootcamp exists.

Boot camps became popular so quickly largelybecause they claimed to reduce recidivism rates. Studieshave found that these initial claims were inflated; mostevaluations report that the recidivism rates of those whosuccessfully complete a term in a boot camp are similarto the rates for those who were placed in regular proba-tion or diversion programs. MacKenzie and Souryal(1995) found no differences in recidivism rates betweenthose who completed a boot camp program and a com-parison group in eight American states. MacKenzie andSouryal, in a study of boot camps in six states, found thatregular probationers were less likely than boot campgraduates to be rearrested for a crime. Other studies havefound no significant differences in recidivism ratesbetween boot camp participants and comparison groups.Some boot camp graduates had higher rates of recidi-vism (Austin 2000; Zhang 1999).

In general, it has been found that successful bootcamp participants are more likely to be incarcerated fornew offences than regular probationers. Most researchersbelieve that certain limitations of boot camps have pre-vented them from reducing recidivism. These limitationsare mainly the result of the following:

• Low “dosage” effects. The length of stay in boot campsis usually too short to affect recidivism rates.

• Insufficient preparation of boot camp inmates for re-entryinto the community. Many boot camps provide little orno post-release programming to prepare graduates tolead productive lives. In addition, the intensive super-vision common to later types of boot camps has meantheightened surveillance levels of boot camp graduates.Together, these factors increase the rates of failure forboot camp graduates—usually for technical paroleviolations.

• The absence of a strong underlying treatment model. Thelack of a consistent research design and approach hasmade it difficult to conduct scientific analyses.

There is some evidence, however, that boot campscan influence some offenders’ behaviour more positivelythan regular probation. First, after release from custody,but while still under supervision in the community,graduates of boot camps were involved in more positiveactivities in the community. The key element seems tobe the maintenance of an aftercare program in the com-munity for at least five months; this program component


can lead to significant reductions in recidivism rates.Second, unlike those individuals incarcerated in tradi-tional custodial facilities or placed on regular probation,boot camp participants indicated that their experienceled to significant positive changes in attitude and behav-iour. Various researchers found that the benefits of bootcamps included improved physical health and educa-tional opportunities, as well as appropriate therapeuticprogramming.

Another goal of boot camps is to reduce prisonpopulations. Supporters of boot camps contend thatthis can occur in two ways: (1) through lower recidivismrates for boot camp graduates, who might have com-mitted many more crimes had they not been “shockincarcerated”; and (2) through the reduction of timethat offenders spend in prison, since boot camp partic-ipants are usually returned to the community much ear-lier than those incarcerated. MacKenzie and Souryal(1995) reported that some factors affected the ability ofboot camps to reduce prison crowding. These factorsincluded the following: restrictive eligibility and suit-ability criteria (stricter criteria divert fewer prison-bound offenders); length of the program (programs thatkeep participants in boot camps longer are less likely toreduce prison crowding); and the size of the programand graduation rates (smaller programs and those thatgraduate fewer offenders keep fewer offenders outof prison). If boot camps are to reduce prison over-crowding, programs must be carefully designed andcontrolled.

Boot camps can in fact positively influence someoffenders’ behaviour and reduce prison crowding, butonly if the program is properly designed and imple-mented. Researchers who have analyzed successful bootcamps point out that staff commitment, programintegrity, and timing are the key factors in turning par-ticipants into prosocial individuals.

SPECIALIZED COURTS FORYOUTHSAs in the adult justice system, specialty courts havestarted to appear in the juvenile justice system. Thesecourts are designed to hear specific cases involvingspecific types of offenders (usually non-violent first-time offenders). For some problems, they have gradu-ally outstripped intermediate sanctions as the mainapproach to dealing with young offenders (althoughmany do use components such as intensive supervision,which became popular when introduced as interme-diate sanctions).

Teen (Peer) CourtsRecently in the United States, “teen” courts have beenintroduced (they are sometimes referred to as “peer”courts). At the end of 2003, about 1,000 of these courtswere operating in that country, and it is estimated thatthey hear about 100,000 cases each year (Butts, Buck,and Coggeshall 2002). These courts are essentially usedfor relatively young first-time offenders charged withnon-serious crimes such as theft, minor assault, and dis-orderly conduct. Most teen courts do not determine guiltor innocence; rather, they amount to diversion programs.Before youths can participate in a teen court, they have toadmit to the charges against them. Hearings focus on themitigating and aggravating circumstances that mightaffect sentencing, including the defendant’s remorse,behaviour at home, and educational achievement (King1990). Sentences are considered to be indicative of the(youth) jury’s judgment of the offender’s character,not just the offence itself (Williamson et al. 1993).

Teen courts are in effect courtrooms in whichteens fill most of the roles. Teen courts are based on oneof four models:

• Adult judge. An adult judge serves as the judge andmakes decisions about legal matters and courtroomprocedures. Youths serve as lawyers, jurors, courtclerks, and so on.

• Youth judge. This is similar to the above model, exceptthat a youth serves as the judge.

• Tribunal. Youths serve as both the prosecutor and thedefence counsel and present the case to a panel ofthree youth judges, who then decide on the propersentence for the defendant. Juries are not used in thisapproach.

• Peer jury. Here, youths are not used as prosecutors ordefence attorneys; instead, the case is presented to ayouth jury by a youth or adult. The jury then questionsthe defendant directly.

The most common type of teen court is the onethat uses an adult judge. It has been found that teencourts lead to low rates of recidivism, although descrip-tive studies have found that these rates vary, from a lowof 7 percent to a high of 32 percent (Butts et al. 2002;Minor et al. 1999). Studies using comparison groupshave found similar variations in recidivism rates.Studies have found no differences between teen courtyouths and comparison groups; others have foundhigher recidivism rates for youths processed throughteen court; still others have found lower recidivism ratesfor teen court graduates (Butts et al. 2002; Weisz et al.2002). Despite the differences in recidivism rates, thesestudies agree that youths who exhibit more serious


problem behaviours are more likely to exhibit problembehaviours afterward. Rasmussen (2004) found in hisstudy of a teen court that the risk of recidivismincreased with the age of the defendant, the greater thenumber of community service hours the defendantreceived from a youth jury, the longer it took to processthe case, and the longer it took the legal system to referthe case.

Juvenile Gun CourtsAlthough gun-related youth crime has decreased overthe past few years in the United States, gun violenceinvolving youths remains at high levels. Over the past20 years, youth and family courts in the United Stateshave been criticized for not developing and imple-menting programs for youths involved in gun crimes(Butts and Harrell 1998). In response to these criti-cisms, since the mid-1990s, new specialty courts,known as juvenile gun courts, have begun to appear inthat country. Juvenile gun courts intervene with youthswho have committed gun offences that have notresulted in serious physical injury. Most juvenile guncourts are short-term programs that augment ratherthan replace regular youth court proceedings. Juvenilegun courts are characterized by small caseloads, fre-quent hearings, immediate sanctions, family involve-ment, and treatment services (Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention 1999).

Juvenile gun courts are intended to promotegreater accountability for gun possession and, in somecases, gun use. Accountability is increased by timing theintervention close to the time of the arrest and byrequiring participants to attend the gun court session. Inaddition, gun court sessions allow participants to reflecton the possible consequences of their behaviour by lis-tening to the stories of victims. Gun court programsattempt to help participants by:

• stemming future gun possession;• reducing recidivism rates; and• increasing participants’ involvement in community-

based programs.

One of the first juvenile gun courts in the UnitedStates was the Jefferson County Juvenile Gun Court inBirmingham, Alabama. Since its founding, this courthas successfully reduced youth involvement in gun-related crimes, reduced the incidence of violent crimes inthe community, and reduced recidivism rates. This court

began when a family court judge in the county readabout the success of an adult gun court in the north-eastern United States. He began planning a youth ver-sion for his community. By April 1995, the new courtwas operating.

The Jefferson County Gun Court is part of theFamily Court, which administers 24 programs that pro-vide “wraparound” services to offenders and their fami-lies (i.e., it integrates service delivery for individualchildren and their families). Most services are offeredonsite. This centralized provision of comprehensiveservices is a key element in the gun court’s success. Thecourt reviews all incoming cases within 72 hours andtries them within ten working days. Judges have theauthority to impose mandatory detention for youngoffenders, with judicial discretion as to whether eachcase is eligible for diversion. In addition, the AlabamaDepartment of Youth Services provides access to 28-dayboot camps and other appropriate facilities. Probationofficers conduct intensive supervision and follow-up.Parents are required to involve themselves throughoutthe adjudication process.

Between 1995 and 1999, formal youth guncharges decreased by 54 percent in Birmingham. Ratesof violent crime decreased by 57 percent over this sameperiod. Evaluators have noted that the reductions in vio-lent crime cannot be attributed directly to the gun courtitself, but have also concluded that the court is verylikely a factor.

Most juvenile gun courts share these fourcharacteristics:

• Early intervention—in many jurisdictions, before theresolution of the court proceedings.

• Short-term, intensive programming (often a singletwo- to four-hour session).

• An intensive educational focus, using knowledgeable,concerned adults from the community to point out toyouth the harm that can result from unlawful gun use;the choices he or she can make regarding carryingand/or using guns; non-violent alternatives forresolving conflicts; and the immediate response byadults in positions of authority that will result whenyouths are involved with guns.

• The inclusion of a broad range of court personnel andlaw enforcement officials—judges, prosecutors, pro-bation officers, defence attorneys, and police offi-cers—working together with members of thecommunity.



CRITICAL ISSUES IN CANADIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Can the law make someone responsible foranother person’s criminal actions? Yes it can, andmost laws in this respect are found in the area ofyoung offenders. Indeed, the law has long recog-nized that the family is a key factor in delin-quency. Since parental discipline and control areassumed to be closely associated with youthcrime, some American jurisdictions are nowmaking parents responsible for their children’scriminal behaviour.

These laws are not without precedent.Variants of them existed in one form or anotherin Canada and the United States throughout thetwentieth century. The first parental responsi-bility law was enacted by Colorado in 1903; itpenalized parents for “contributing to the delin-quency of a minor.” Laws such as this allow thecourts to punish parents in juvenile courts forbehaviours associated with or suspected ofencouraging their children’s delinquency.

Supporters of such laws believe that condi-tions in the family unit are the best predictorof children’s behaviour and that parents areresponsible for teaching their children theimportance of subscribing to social values. Forty-two American states have enacted this type oflaw. One of them is California, where it is now amisdemeanour offence when parents fail “toexercise reasonable care, supervision, protectionand control over their children.” In an effort tocontrol gangs, California expanded this law in1988 with its Street Terrorism and PreventionAct. Persons convicted of breaking this law facea maximum penalty of a $2,500 fine and oneyear in prison. The California Supreme Courtupheld this law in July 1993, ruling that the lawset a standard of behaviour for parents. In 1995,three other states—Wyoming, Arizona, andLouisiana—enacted similar laws, creating thecrime “improper” or “negligent” parentalsupervision, with penalties similar to those inthe California legislation.

Some states have enacted legislationallowing for the criminal punishment of parentswho violate parental responsibility statutes.Perhaps the most widely reported case was inElgin, Illinois. There, in May 1992, a judge sen-tenced a mother to 30 days in jail for failing tokeep her grade 2 daughter in school. Other par-ents have been ordered to serve time in class-rooms with their chronically truant children.After analyzing these and other cases, Geis and

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR JUVENILE CRIMES

Binder (1991) concluded that laws making parentsresponsible for the criminal actions of their chil-dren are “nasty and vicious.” They also arguedthat no empirical studies had yet been conductedto evaluate claims that parental responsibilitylaws reduce the crime rate of youths.

Another approach to this issue makes parentscivilly responsible for the actions of their children.Parents whose children break the law may berequired to pay for the damages caused by thosechildren. Every American state except NewHampshire and New York has a parental-liabilitylaw in its statutes, albeit with limits on how muchmoney can be paid out. The average maximumrecovery amount for all jurisdictions is $4,100.Vermont has the lowest maximum fine ($250);Texas has the highest ($15,000).

Manitoba was the first Canadian province topermit victims of property crimes to sue theparents of youths who committed an offence.This legislation—the Parental ResponsibilityAct—was enacted in the fall of 1997 and allowsparents of young offenders to be sued to amaximum of $7,500 for compensation for theirchild’s illegal actions. This law places the onuson the parents of the offender to prove theyweren’t negligent in looking after and super-vising their child. However, it is up to the victimsto gather the evidence, complete the necessarypaperwork, and make sure the defendants areproperly served with the appropriate papers.If the complainant wins the case and the defen-dants don’t pay them the amount awarded, itis up to the complainant to obtain a garnish-ment order.

In the first two years after this legislation wasproclaimed, only ten cases have involved legalproceedings. Parents have been held liable in twoof the ten cases. Of the other eight, none hasreached a court hearing: two were adjournedindefinitely, and the other six were either dis-missed or discontinued (Kuxhaus 1999).

Ontario introduced its Parental ResponsibilityLaw in 2000. It deals only with claims of up to$6,000 for property damages. It places the burdenon parents to show that they exercised “reason-able supervision” over their child when the inci-dent occurred. This law generated strongcontroversy when it was introduced, since itassumes that any damage or loss was intention-ally caused unless a parent can persuade a judgeotherwise (“Who’s a Bad Parent . . .” 2000).


CRITICAL ISSUES IN CANADIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE (Continued )

Questions1. Do you think parental responsibility laws will

have an impact upon youth crime?2. Do you think there are any unresolved issues

in these types of laws that can be addressedby other means? If so, what are they?

3. Do you think these laws can be effectivelyenforced?

SUMMARYAt the beginning of the twentieth century in Canada,there was no federal legislation governing juveniles. Bythe end of the century, the Young Offenders Act, inplace for just 16 years, was being superseded by theYouth Criminal Justice Act. The YOA had introduced avirtual revolution in the area of juvenile justice inCanada. Youths now had the same rights as adults, aswell as special facilities and diversion programs (i.e.,

alternative measures). Many people were critical of theYOA and demanded that changes be made to make ittougher.

As a result, amendments were made to the YOAregarding the length of sentences and the laws governingtransfers to adult court. Whether the Youth CriminalJustice Act will succeed or fail remains to be seen, but ithas introduced more legislation concerning preventionmeasures and support for rehabilitation programs thanwas available in the YOA.

Discussion Questions1. What does parens patriae mean?2. How do statistics concerning young offenders differ from those collected for

adults?3. How did the juvenile justice system evolve over the course of the twentieth

century?4. Should youths be protected by the same due process rights afforded adults?5. Should transfer hearings for youths be extended to 14- and 15-year-olds who

commit serious crimes?6. What trends and patterns can be seen in youths taken into custody and

sentenced for a period of incarceration, and the Youth Criminal Justice Actof 2003?

7. Should the length of sentences for all youths be lengthened? If so, by how much?8. Is it a good idea to expand alternative measures to include all young offenders

except those who commit serious violent crimes?9. Do you think that parental responsibility laws help reduce youth crime?

Do you think these laws are a good idea?

Suggested ReadingsBell, Sandra J. Young Offenders and Juvenile Justice: A Century after the Fact.

Scarborough, ON: ITP Nelson, 1999.Camp, G., and C.G. Camp. 1993. The Corrections Yearbook: Probation and Parole.

South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute.Chesney-Lind, M., and R. Shelden. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Pacific

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1992.Dell, C.A., and R. Boe. Female Young Offenders in Canada, rev. ed. Ottawa:

Correctional Service of Canada, Research Branch, 1998.Doob, A., and C. Cesaroni. Responding to Youth Crime in Canada. Toronto: University

of Toronto Press, 2004.Lescheid, A., P. Jaffe, and W. Willis, eds. The Young Offenders Act: A Revolution in

Canadian Juvenile Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.Platt, A. The Child Savers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.Schur, E. Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

ReferencesAustin, J. 2000. Multisite Evaluation of Boot Camp Programs. Washington, DC:

George Washington University, Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections.Bala, N. 1994. “What’s Wrong with the YOA Bashing? What’s Wrong with the

YOA? Recognizing the Limits of the Law.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 36:247–70.

Bell, S. 1999. Young Offenders and Juvenile Justice: A Century after the Fact.Scarborough, ON: ITP Nelson.


Butts, J., J. Buck, and M. Coggeshall. 2002. The Impact of Teen Court on YoungOffenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Butts, J., and A. Harrell. 1998. “One-Size-Fits-All Justice Simply Isn’t Fair.”Christian Science Monitor, December 1, electronic edition.

Calverley, D. 2006. Youth Custody and Community Services in Canada, 2003/04.Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

Dell, C.A. 1999. “Young Offender Legislation in Canada: A Commentary.” Forum onCorrections Research 11: 47–50.

Dell, C.A., and R. Boe. 1997. Female Young Offenders in Canada: Recent Trends.Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.

Doob, A. 2001. Youth Court Judges’ Views of the Youth Justice System: The Results of aSurvey. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.

Fagan, J. 1995. “Separating the Men from the Boys: The Comparative Advantage ofJuvenile versus Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism among AdolescentFelony Offenders.” In J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson,eds., A Sourcebook of Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Feld, B.C. 1987. “Juvenile Court Meets the Principle of Offense: Legislative Changesin Juvenile Waiver Statutes.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78:471–533.

Geis, G., and A. Binder. 1991. “Sins of Their Children: Parental Responsibility forJuvenile Delinquency.” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 5:303–22.

King, S. 1990. “LaPorte Teen Court: Diversionary Juvenile Rehabilitation and More.”Res Gestae 34: 10–14.

Kong, R. 2009. Youth Custody and Community Services in Canada, 2007/2008. Ottawa:Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

Kowalski, M. 1999. Alternative Measures for Youth in Canada. Ottawa: CanadianCentre for Justice Statistics.

Kuxhaus, D. 1999. “Do Laws against Parents Work?” Winnipeg Free Press. November16, A1, A3.

Lee, N., and T. Leonard. 1995. “Serious Violent Offences and Offenders in YouthCourt.” In C.A. Dell and R. Boe, Female Young Offenders in Canada: RecentTrends. Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.

Leschied, A. 1995. “The Young Offenders Act in Review: A More Than ModestProposal for Change.” Forum on Corrections Research 7: 37–40.

MacKenzie, D. 1994. Multi-Site Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Executive Summary.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

MacKenzie, D., and D.B. Ballow. 1995. “Shock Incarceration and Recidivism: AnExamination of Boot Camps in Four States.” In J.O. Smykla and W.L. Selke,eds., Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s. Cincinnati: Anderson.

MacKenzie, D., and C. Souryal. 1995. “Inmates Attitude Change duringIncarceration: A Comparison of Boot Camp and Traditional Prison.” JusticeQuarterly 12: 325–354.

Makin, K. 2006. “Top Court Says Teens Deserve Leniency.” The Globe and Mail,June 23, A1, A6.

Marinelli, J. 2002. Youth Custody and Community Services in Canada, 2000/01.Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.


Minor, K.I., J.B. Wells, I.R. Soderstrom, R. Bingham, and D. Williamson. 1999.“Sentence Completion and Recidivism among Juveniles Referred to TeenCourts.” Crime and Delinquency 45: 467–80.

Morris, N., and M. Tonry. 1990. Between Prison and Probation: IntermediatePunishments in a Rational Sentencing System. New York: Oxford University Press.

Moyer, S. 1996. Report of the Federal–Provincial–Territorial Task Force on Youth Justice:A Profile of the Youth Justice System in Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of Justice.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1999. “An Evolving JuvenileCourt: On the Front Lines with Judge J. Dean Lewis.” Juvenile Justice 6: 3–12.

Rasmussen, A. 2004. “Teen Court Referral, Sentencing, and Subsequent Recidivism:Two Proportional Hazards Models and a Little Speculation.” Crime andDelinquency 50: 615–35.

Reitano, J. 2004. Youth Custody and Community Services in Canada, 2002/03. Ottawa:Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

Roberts, J.V. 2003. “Sentencing Juvenile Offenders in Canada.” Journal ofContemporary Criminal Justice 19: 413–34.

Rothman, D.J. 1971. The Discovery of the Asylum. Boston: Little, Brown.Siegel, L.J., and J.J. Senna. 1997. Juvenile Delinquency, 3rd ed. Minneapolis: West.Sinclair, R.L., and C.A. Dell. 1999. “Recent Trends in Youth Crime.” Forum on

Corrections Research 11: 39–42.Sprott, J.B. 1996. “Understanding Public Views of Youth Crime and the Youth

Justice System.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 38: 271–90.Sutherland, N. 1976. Children in English-Canadian Society: Framing the Twentieth-

Century Consensus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Taylor-Butts, A., and A. Bressan. 2008. Youth Crime in Canada, 2006. Ottawa:

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.Thomas, J. 2008. Youth Court Statistics, 2006/07. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice

Statistics.Valpy, M. 2002. “A Dark Passage in Ontario’s Past.” The Globe and Mail, March

22, A3.Weisz, V., R.C. Lott, and N.D. Thai. 2002. “A Teen Court Evaluation with a

Therapeutic Jurisprudence Perspective.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 20:381–92.

West, G. 1991. “Towards a More Socially Informed Understanding of CanadianLegislation.” In A. Leschied, P. Jaffe, and W. Wills, eds., The Young OffendersAct. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

“Who’s a Bad Parent, Then?” 2000. The Globe and Mail. August 17, A12.Williamson, D., M. Chalk, and P. Knepper. 1993. “Teen Court: Juvenile Justice for

the 21st century. Federal Probation 57: 54–58.Zhang. S.C. 1999. An Evaluation of the Los Angeles Juvenile Drug Treatment Boot

Camp. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Court CasesR. v. B.V.N. (2006), S.C.C. 27R. v. B.W.P. (2006), S.C.C. 27R. v. M.(M.R.) (1998), 3 S.C.R. 393


WeblinksFor the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions concerning the role of deterrence in sen-tencing youth offenders, go to http://lexum.umontreal.ca/en/index.html and read R. v.B.V.N. and R. v. B.W.P. (2006). Both decisions were released on June 22, 2006. For theSupreme Court decision in R. v. M.(M.R.), go to the same website and click on “1998”and then Volume 3; the decision was announced on November 26.


Documents

CHAPTER 13 Youth Justice - · PDF fileUnderstand why the Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed and the differences ... Before his trial, ... emphasis was on treatment rather than punishment.The