WHAT IS IT?

The Young Offenders Act (YOA) was implemented in 1982 replacing the JDA with a different approach to dealing with youth crime. Under the YOA, youth aged 12 to 17 who committed crimes were termed “young offenders”.  This Act represented a major change in legislation as it pushed youth to take responsibility for their actions while indicating that young people were seen to have “special needs”. This meant that youth could not be accountable for their actions to the same extent as adults. This standard asserted that youth were in a “state of dependency” and were in need of guidance rather than punishment. The YOA used alternate measures to prevent youth from committing crimes by focusing on implementing diversion programs. This intended to decrease the number of first-time offenders facing criminal charges and caused less time occupying judges and lawyers. Another main focus of this Act was to strongly assert the individual rights of the young offender, which was a direct improvement from the JDA. 

The YOA was considered a hybrid law in terms of its integration of three models of justice. First, the Justice Model was viewed as a large focus of this Act. The court wanted to ensure that a “just” system was achieved to ensure that the fairest sentencing was given to children. This was implemented surrounding the rule of law, meaning that a fair trial and the punishment should fit the crime. This also asserted the right to due processing for youth, such as being able to make an appeal and the right to legal counsel. Second, the Modified-Justice Model was used as the court adhered to “pure justice”. Thus, it did not allow for indeterminate sentencing. This combined the Justice Model with elements of the child welfare approach. Third, the Crime Control Model was viewed as a key element of the YOA. This “get tough” on crime model was retributive in its approach to justice. Instead of being charged with delinquency, as seen under the JDA, youth were charged with violating a specific section of the Criminal Code. 

Limited Accountability

With the introduction of the YOA, children now have limited accountability compared to adults. The YOA wanted to give the youth a shorter sentence with giving them a max sentence of 10 years for first degree murder and a 7 year sentence for second degree murder.

Parental Responsibility

Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act the parents of guardians of the children would often be held respoinsible for the childs actions. Alternatively, under the YOA did not take in consideration parental responsilbity for the childs behavior. However, under the act the parents were to be tried in court with their child. If the judge believed the parents were irresponsible then the court could remove the children from the parents.

REVISIONS OF THE YOA

As the media played a major part in fueling public condemnation of the YOA, it faced three separate revision regarding the Crime Control Model. In 1986, “dangerous” young people were defined and identified as the publication ban was abolished, meaning their names were released to the public. Additionally, this modification altered the treatment of youth who breached probation. The second revision took place in 1991 which focused on raising maximum sentencing. This was a direct result of individuals believing the YOA was too lenient and that the public was not being adequately protected. Thus, the maximum sentencing for youth was changed from 3 to 5 years. Furthermore, this revision allowed youth to be transferred to adult court in specific cases. The last revision took place in 1995 which emphasized rehabilitation served in the community for minor offences and tougher legislation for more severe acts of crime. This resulted in the maximum sentence being changed to 10 years for first degree murder and 7 years for second degree murder. Additionally, this revision allowed an increase in youth aged 14 and older to be transferred to adult court. 

CRITICISMS

Since its introduction in 1984, the YOA received resistance. This is due, in part, to its number of conflicting principles and variety of possible interpretations. Much of the opposition came from conservative interest groups that advocated the Crime Control Model. Their efforts were reinforced by various provincial governments concerned about the cost of the correction programs. This Act reduced the degree of secrecy surrounding the youth justice system and thus, public opinion had a greater effect on legislation. Under this Act, it was not uncommon for federal and provincial legislation to conflict.   

The YOA did not explicitly take into consideration parental responsibility for the child’s behavior. However, the parents were to be tried in court with their child. If the judge believed the parents were irresponsible or neglectful, the court had the power to remove the children from the parents. Parens Patriae was removed from the YOA. The ambiguity of parental responsibility under this Act accounted for large amounts of inequalities in the youth justice system. For instance, Aboriginal youth were at a large disadvantage and received harsher sentences due to poverty and lack of resources.  

Under the YOA, all trials took place in the youth court regardless of the severity of the crime. Thus, only after the trial and conviction occurred may youth be subjected to adult sentencing. This created an issue as an adult sentence could to arise out of a trial geared toward juvenile sentencing. This Act also caused juveniles to serve adult sentences in youth facilities which was highly problematic. Young offenders who committed minor crimes were mixed with older youth convicted of murder, rape and repeated violent offences.   

The strong public opinion that the YOA was too lenient stemmed from publicized cases where young offenders were given limited jail sentences for severe offences. Many individuals pushed for a more retributive approach suggesting that long and stiff punishments were necessary for proper deterrent measures. In contrast, other citizens believed that the Act was too harsh and counter- productive. Evidence for this was reflected in the large increase in youth incarceration rates in Canada. In 1977, it was reported by the federal Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that Canada’s rate of youth incarceration was more than twice the amount in the United States and 10 to 15 times higher than many European countries. The general belief was that prison provided a space for breeding life-long criminals and increased repeated offenders. This called for reform based on providing alternatives to incarceration and more change in legislation. 

SOURCES:

“Chapter 2.” Young Offenders and Youth Justice: A Century after the Fact, by Sandra Jean Bell and Sims Family, W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library, 2016.

McMahon, Fred. “Getting Tough on the Young Offenders Act.” Fraser Institute, http://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/getting-tough-young-offenders-act.

“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.