---

WHAT IS IT?

The Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA) was implemented in 1908 and originated with the ideas of J. J. Kelso and W. L. Wilson. Under this Act, children who committed crimes were termed “juvenile delinquents”. The JDA represented a large philosophical shift regarding treatment of juveniles, as stated in section 38 of the Act, “every juvenile delinquent shall be treated, not as criminal, but as a misdirected and misguided child”. The general belief was that delinquency was the result of a bad social environment and children should be “saved”. 

 The child saving concern caused the adoption of a child welfare philosophy. This indicated that the government had ownership over the wellbeing and rehabilitation of children by any means necessary. This led to the separation of the justice system to treat children and adults differently under the law with separate courts. The welfare- based juvenile justice system implemented under the JDA gave way for a Parens Patriae doctrine which formed a basis for the Child Savers Movement. This gave the state the power to act as a guardian, or “parent”, of the young offender. The responsibility of parent involvement in children’s lives was encouraged and the state placed absolute blame on them when their youth stepped outside the law. 

Under this Act, the age of delinquency was set by the province. The minimum age a child could be charged with a criminal offence was 7, while youth below the age of 12 could only be committed to an institution if no other option was available. Once labelled as a juvenile delinquent, youth remained under the control of the state up to 21 years of age in some cases. The Juvenile Court Committee required of the implementation of new roles such as probation officers and volunteers to assist in sentencing recommendations. The sentencing options for judges increased as rehabilitation became a leading motivation to consider, and enormous amounts of discretion were used. Children were often not charged with breaking a specific statute; rather, they were charged with delinquency. Sentencing included both sending youth to an industrial school or reformatory and probation.  

CRITICISMS OF THE JDA

The focus of rehabilitation under the JDA had a positive effect on many children who passed through the juvenile justice system. However, this Act had many flaws which became more apparent over time. The implementation of the law by province resulted in large inconsistencies. Due to this, a 17-year-old would receive a much lighter sentence in certain provinces than he or she otherwise would. The varying levels of discretion used and lack of specific guidelines for judges in sentencing led to significant variations for similar offences. This caused a degree of discrimination to exist and lack of equality in sentencing. Additionally, this resulted in an abuse of discretionary power among social workers and other court appointed officials. Child advocates viewed the JDA as intrusive of the rights of children and their parents. Furthermore, Children’s Aid Societies questioned the means used in accomplishing the goals of the JDA. There were also concerns regarding the lack of lawyer representations and lack of a proper trial. 

            During the 1960’s, the Canadian Bill of Rights (which evolved to be the 1982 Canadian Rights of Freedoms) called for new changes to the JDA. For instance, the laws of evidence used in trials under the JDA were questioned and found to be a violation of the child’s rights. Under the JDA, a judge may have charged youth without proper evidence of the crime on the grounds that the sentence was in the youth’s best interest. Inconsistencies with the application of the law included the ability of judges to charge indeterminate sentences. Thus, children may have been forced to return to court at any time until they turned 21. Additionally, there was no set amount of time a child can be held in custody. Judges were able to sentence a child for an undetermined period of time until they felt the individual was reformed. Other critics asserted the ineffectiveness of the law to deter crime under the JDA. Conservative critics viewed the JDA as being too lenient on juveniles and over time, rising youth crime rates resulted in decreased public support for a social welfare approach. Therefore, public sentiment grew for legislation that adopted a more punitive approach to youth crime. 

SOURCES:

Bala, Nicholas, and Heino Lilles. Youth Criminal Justice Law. Irwin Law, 2015.

“Youth Justice in Canada: History & Debates.” Youth Justice in Canada: History & Debates | Mapleleafweb.com, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/youth-justice-canada-history-debates.html#juvenile.