The Youth Criminal Justice Act Summary and Background

PDF Version

Introduction

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is the law that governs Canada's youth justice system. It applies to youth who are at least 12 but under eighteen years one-time, who are declared to have committed criminal offences. In over a century of youth justice legislation in Canada, there have been three youth justice statutes: the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908-1984), the Young Offenders Act (YOA) (1984-2003), and the Youth Criminal Justice Human activity (YCJA) (2003-present). A set of amendments to the YCJA was adopted by Parliament in 2012. The purpose of this document is to explain the background of the YCJA, to provide a summary of its chief provisions and the rationale backside them, and to highlight the experience under the YCJA.

Background

On April 1, 2003, the YCJA came into strength, completely replacing the previous legislation, the YOA. The YCJA introduced significant reforms to address concerns about how the youth justice system had evolved under the YOA. These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims. The YCJA provided the legislative framework for a fairer and more than effective youth justice system. The amendments adopted past Parliament in 2012 aimed to strengthen the ways in which the youth justice system deals with repeat and violent offenders.

Preamble and Announcement of Principle

The YCJA contains both a Preamble and a Proclamation of Principle that applies throughout the Deed. The Preamble contains meaning statements from Parliament about the values upon which the legislation is based. These statements tin be used to assistance translate the legislation and include the following:

  • Society has a responsibility to address the developmental challenges and needs of young persons.
  • Communities and families should work in partnership with others to prevent youth criminal offense by addressing its underlying causes, responding to the needs of immature persons and providing guidance and support.
  • Accurate data nigh youth law-breaking, the youth justice system and constructive measures should exist publicly available.
  • Young persons have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms, including those fix out in the Un Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  • The youth justice organisation should accept into account the interests of victims and ensure accountability through meaningful consequences, rehabilitation and reintegration.
  • The youth justice system should reserve its well-nigh serious interventions for the most serious crimes and reduce the over-reliance on incarceration.

The Declaration of Principle sets out the policy framework of the legislation. Unlike previous youth justice legislation, the YCJA provides guidance on the priority that is to exist given to key principles.

The Declaration of Principle provides that:

  • The youth justice system is intended to protect the public by (i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, (ii) promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons, and (iii) supporting crime prevention past referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community to address the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour.
  • The youth justice system must be split from the adult system and must exist based on the principle of macerated moral blameworthiness or culpability.
  • The youth justice arrangement must reflect the fact that young people lack the maturity of adults. The youth organisation is different from the developed system in many respects: measures of accountability are consistent with immature persons' reduced level of maturity, procedural protections are enhanced, rehabilitation and reintegration are given special accent, and the importance of timely intervention is recognized.
  • Young persons are to exist held accountable through interventions that are fair and in proportion to the seriousness of the offence.
  • Within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, interventions should reinforce respect for societal values; encourage the repair of harm washed; be meaningful to the young person; respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences; and reply to the needs of Aboriginal immature persons and young persons with special requirements.
  • Youth justice proceedings require a recognition that young persons accept rights and freedoms in their own right and special guarantees of these rights and freedoms; courtesy, compassion and respect for victims; the opportunity for victims to be informed and to participate; and that parents exist informed and encouraged to participate in addressing the young person's offending behaviour.

In improver to the Preamble and the Declaration of Principle, the YCJA includes other more than specific principles to guide decision-making at key points in the youth justice procedure: Extrajudicial Measures, Youth Sentencing, and Custody and Supervision. These additional principles are discussed beneath.

Extrajudicial Measures

Background

Experience in Canada and other countries shows that measures outside the court procedure can provide effective responses to less serious youth criminal offense. One of the key objectives of the YCJA is to increment the employ of effective and timely non-courtroom responses to less serious offences by youth. These extrajudicial measures provide meaningful consequences, such as requiring the young person to repair the harm washed to the victim. They also let early intervention with young people and provide the opportunity for the broader community to play an important function in developing community-based responses to youth offense. Increasing the use of non-court responses also enables the courts to focus on the more than serious cases of youth criminal offense.

Prior to the YCJA, youth courts were dealing with a big number of relatively minor offences that did not require a court proceeding in order to adequately hold the immature person answerable. In addition, the extent to which cases were diverted from the court procedure varied considerably between provinces.

YCJA Provisions

The YCJA contains provisions to increase the appropriate use of extrajudicial measures for less serious offences, including the post-obit principles:

  • Extrajudicial measures should be used in all cases where they would be adequate to hold the young person accountable.
  • Extrajudicial measures are presumed to be adequate to hold first-time, not-violent offenders accountable.
  • Extrajudicial measures may be used if the immature person has previously been dealt with by extrajudicial measures or has been constitute guilty of an offence. Equally amended in 2012, the YCJA requires constabulary to keep records of any extrajudicial measures used with a young person. These records will meliorate inform police and so that they can take appropriate action in respect of subsequent alleged offences.

The YCJA as well sets out clear objectives to guide the use of extrajudicial measures, including repairing the harm caused to the victim and the community; providing an opportunity for victims to participate in decisions; ensuring that the measures are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence; and encouraging the interest of families, victims and other members of the community.

The YCJA requires police officers to consider the use of extrajudicial measures before deciding to charge a immature person. Police and prosecutors are specifically authorized to utilize various types of extrajudicial measures:

  • Taking no further action.
  • Warnings, which are breezy warnings by law officers.
  • Law cautions, which are more formal warnings by the law. The YCJA authorizes provinces to constitute police cautioning programs. Law cautions may be in the grade of a letter from the law to the young person and the parents, or they may involve a process in which the young person and the parents are requested to appear at a constabulary station to talk to a senior police officer.
  • Crown cautions, which are similar to police cautions but prosecutors give the caution later the law refer the case to them. In one province where they are currently being used, Crown cautions are in the grade of a letter to the young person and the parents.
  • Referrals, which are referrals by law officers of young persons to community programs or agencies that may help them not to commit offences. The referral may be to a wide range of community resources, including recreation programs and counseling agencies.
  • Extrajudicial sanctions, which are the most formal blazon of extrajudicial mensurate, may be pre-charge or post-charge. Unlike the other types of extrajudicial measures, they may be used merely if the young person admits responsibleness for the offending behaviour and consents to exist subject field to the sanction. The admission of responsibility is not a plea of guilty to the declared offence. Prior to consenting, the young person must be informed of what the sanction would be and given the opportunity to consult with a lawyer. The Attorney General of the province must determine that there is sufficient show to keep with a prosecution of the offence. In addition, the sanctions must be part of an extrajudicial sanctions programme designated by the Chaser General. If the young person fails to comply with the terms and atmospheric condition of the sanction, the instance may continue through the court process. An extrajudicial sanction can be used only if the immature person cannot be adequately dealt with by a alarm, circumspection or referral.

Experience under the YCJA

In keeping with the Human activity'southward objectives, charging has decreased significantly under the YCJA and police diversion of cases through extrajudicial measures has increased significantly. Under the YOA in 1999, 63 percent of youths accused of a crime were charged and 37 percent were not charged. Under the YCJA in 2010, 42 per centum of youths accused of a offense were charged and 58 percent were not charged (run into Figure i). The number of defendant young persons who were charged includes those who were recommended for charging by police in provinces in which the prosecutor makes the determination on charging. Young persons who were not charged include youths diverted from the courtroom procedure through the use of warnings, referrals to community programs, cautions and pre-accuse extrajudicial sanctions. This change in constabulary behaviour occurred without evidence of net-widening; in other words, the show does not suggest an increase in the number of young persons drawn into the organization and subjected to breezy measures, but rather an increase in the employ of informal measures as an alternative to laying charges.

There has also been a pregnant reduction in the utilise of the court nether the YCJA. Youth courtroom cases declined by 26 percent betwixt 2002-03 and 2009-10 (see Effigy 2). After a large initial drop, the number of youth courtroom cases has remained relatively stable. At that place have been declines in courtroom cases in all provinces and territories, with declines of more than 20 pct in 7 jurisdictions. Court cases take declined significantly in all major offence categories.

Despite the significant reduction in the number of court cases, almost cases still involve offences that are relatively "less serious." The nearly serious offence in one of every six court cases is an administration of justice offence (17 percent of cases), which typically involves behaviour that would not exist an offence outside of a courtroom order, such equally breaching a probation status (e.g., a curfew).

Figure 1: Accused Youths: Charged v. Non Charged - 1999 and 2010

Figure 1: Accused Youths: Charged v. Not Charged 1999 and 2010 described below

Figure 1 - Text equivalent

Description of Figure one: Accused Youths: Charged v. Non Charged - 1999 and 2010

YOA 1999

  • Charged: 63%
  • Non Charged: 37%

YCJA 2010

  • Charged: 42%
  • Non Charged: 58%

Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Incident-based crime statistics

Effigy 2: Youth Courtroom Cases, Canada, 2002/03 - 2009/10

Figure 2: Youth Court Cases, Canada, 2002/03 - 2009/10

Figure two - Text equivalent

Clarification of Figure 2: Youth Court Cases, Canada: 2002/03 to 2009/10

  • 2002/03 - 76,204 cases
  • 2003/04 - 64,029 cases
  • 2004/05 - 57,676 cases
  • 2005/06 - 57,468 cases
  • 2006/07 - 57,483 cases
  • 2007/08 - 58,708 cases
  • 2008/09 - 58,379 cases
  • 2009/x - 56,234 cases

Source: Canadian Eye for Justice Statistics, Youth Court Survey

Conferences

Background

Prior to the YCJA, the employ of conferences was increasing in many parts of Canada in guild to assist in the making of decisions regarding young persons who were involved in the youth justice organization. In general, a conference refers to diverse types of processes in which affected or interested parties come together to formulate plans to accost the circumstances involved in individual youth cases. Conferences operated without legislative authority and in an informal manner.

Conferences can take the course of family group conferencing, youth justice committees, community accountability panels, sentencing circles and inter-agency instance conferences. Conferences provide an opportunity for a wide range of perspectives on a case, more creative solutions, better coordination of services and increased involvement of the victim and other customs members in the youth justice system.

YCJA Provisions

The YCJA authorizes and encourages the convening of conferences to assist decision makers in the youth justice organisation. Under the legislation, a conference is defined as a group of people brought together to give advice to a law officer, judge, justice of the peace, prosecutor, provincial director or youth worker who is required to make a decision under the YCJA. A conference tin can give advice on decisions such every bit:

  • appropriate extrajudicial measures;
  • conditions for release from pre-trial detention;
  • appropriate sentences; and
  • plans for reintegrating the young person back into his or her community after beingness in custody.

A briefing tin be composed of a variety of people depending on the situation. It can include the parents of the young person, the victim, others who are familiar with the young person and his or her neighbourhood, and community agencies or professionals with a particular expertise that is needed for a conclusion. A briefing can be a restorative mechanism that is focused on developing proposals for repairing the harm done to the victim of the young person'south offence. It can also be a professional instance briefing in which professionals hash out how the young person'southward needs tin best be met and how services in the community tin be coordinated to assist the young person.

A briefing under the YCJA is not a decision-making body. It provides advice or recommendations to a decision maker, such as a guess or a prosecutor. The recommendations can be accepted by the decision maker but if they are consistent with the YCJA. For instance, the decision maker cannot take the recommendations of a conference if they would outcome in an extrajudicial measure or sentence that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the young person's offence.

Pre-trial Detention

Background

Prior to the YCJA, at that place was considerable evidence that pre-trial detention was being over-used. In particular, big numbers of youths who were charged with relatively pocket-sized offences were existence detained. Youths were often detained on charges for which adults were non detained. Pre-trial detention was ofttimes used as a fashion of responding to a youth's social-welfare needs rather than for legitimate criminal police reasons.

YCJA Provisions

Most of the provisions related to pre-trial detention under the YOA were not changed with the coming into forcefulness of the YCJA, including the application of the Criminal Code. However, in response to concerns that pre-trial detention was beingness over-used, the YCJA, when passed by Parliament, included the post-obit changes: Pre-trial detention is not to be used as a substitute for kid protection, mental health or other social measures.

  • If a young person would otherwise be detained, the approximate is required to inquire every bit to whether a responsible developed is available who would be willing to have care of the young person as an culling to pre-trial detention.
  • If the young person could not exist sentenced to custody if convicted, the estimate was required to presume that pre-trial detention of the young person is not necessary for the protection or safety of the public. This provision proved to be complex and was the subject of much judicial consideration, often resulting in inconsistent interpretations and application.

In 2012, the pre-trial detention provisions in the YCJA were amended past Parliament. The objective of the amendments was to reduce complexity in gild to facilitate effective decision-making at the pre-trial stage, which includes managing youth in the community where possible, while at the same time ensuring that youth who should be detained can exist detained.

Rather than applying the grounds for detention in the Criminal Code to youth, the amendments created a new stand up-alone test for pre-trial detention of youth in the YCJA. Now a courtroom may detain a youth if the post-obit criteria are met:

  • the youth has been charged with a serious offence (an offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for 5 years or more) or has a history of either outstanding charges or findings of guilt;
  • one of the following grounds exists:
    • there is a substantial likelihood that, if released, the youth volition not appear in court when required;
    • detention is necessary for public protection, having regard to the circumstances, including whether there is a substantial likelihood that the young person will, if released, commit a serious offence; or
    • if the youth has been charged with a serious offence and neither (i) nor (ii) applies (i.e., detention is not necessary to ensure that the youth appears in court or to protect the public), but at that place are exceptional circumstances that justify detention as necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice; and
  • releasing the youth with weather would non be sufficient to address the court's business organisation about releasing the youth.

Experience under the YCJA

In 2009-ten, the average daily number of youths in remand was 15 per centum higher than in 2003-04 (see Figure 3). Half dozen of the ten provinces had a college number of youths in remand in 2008-09 than in 2003-04.

Comparisons of remand rates (i.e., the number of youths in remand per ten,000 youths in the population) too indicate an increase in the use of pre-trial detention under the YCJA. Based on statistics from the x provinces, the overall remand charge per unit increased from iii.3 in 2003-04 to iii.8 in 2009-10 (see Figure 4).

Pre-trial detention under the YCJA is primarily used to detain youths charged with non-violent offences. The most serious offence charged in virtually 75 percent of admissions to detention is a not-violent offence. The most common offence leading to detention is an assistants of justice offence, such every bit a alienation of a bail condition.

Figure 3: Average Daily Number of Youths in Remand, Canada: 2003/04-2009/x

Figure 3: Average Daily Number of Youths in Remand, Canada: 2003/04 - 2009/10 described below

Figure 3 - Text equivalent

Description of Effigy three: Average Daily Number of Youths in Remand, Canada: 2003/04 to 2009/10

  • 2003/04 - 830
  • 2004/05 - 910
  • 2005/06 - 848
  • 2006/07 - 934
  • 2007/08 - one,002
  • 2008/09 - 975
  • 2009/10 - 950

Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey

Figure iv: Youth Remand Rate, All Provinces: 2003/04 to 2009/10

Figure 4: Youth Remand Rate, All Provinces: 2003/04 to 2009/10 described below

Figure 4 - Text equivalent

Clarification of Figure four: Youth Remand Rate, All Provinces: 2003/04 to 2009/10

  • 2003/04 - 3.iii
  • 2004/05 - 3.5
  • 2005/06 - 3.3
  • 2006/07 - iii.half dozen
  • 2007/08 - 3.8
  • 2008/09 - three.8
  • 2009/10 - iii.viii

Rate: Number of youths in remand per 10,000 youths in the population

Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey

Youth Sentences

Groundwork

Prior to the YCJA, Canada had one of the highest youth incarceration rates in the Western globe. Youth sentences were non required to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed, and custody was often imposed as a sentence in less serious cases. Youth courts sometimes imposed very intrusive sentences on young persons who committed relatively minor offences in an effort to address psychological or social needs. In add-on, custody orders did not include a menses of community supervision after the immature person's release from custody, thus declining to ensure appropriate supervision and support for the young person during the transition from custody back into his or her community.

YCJA Provisions

ane. Purpose and principles of sentencing

The YCJA includes a specific purpose and set of principles to guide judges in deciding on a fair and appropriate youth sentence. Nether the YCJA, the purpose of youth sentences is to hold immature persons accountable through but sanctions that ensure meaningful consequences for them and promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into guild, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.

Specific sentencing principles emphasize that a youth judgement must:

  • not be more than severe than what an adult would receive for the same offence;
  • exist similar to youth sentences in similar cases;
  • be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the caste of responsibility of the immature person;
  • within the limits of a proportionate response, (a) exist the least restrictive alternative, (b) be the sentencing pick that is most probable to rehabilitate and reintegrate the young person, and (c) promote in the young person a sense of responsibleness and an acknowledgement of the impairment done past the offence.

Proportionality is a basic principle of fairness that means less serious offences should result in less severe consequences and more serious offences should upshot in more than severe consequences. The YCJA is articulate that rehabilitative measures intended to accost bug that appear to have caused the young person to commit an offence must non upshot in a sentence that is not in proportion to the seriousness of the offence committed. For example, a young person who has committed a relatively minor offence merely has serious psychological needs that seem to take contributed to the behaviour should receive a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence and not the seriousness of the psychological needs.

As passed past Parliament in 2002, neither specific deterrence (i.eastward., deter the specific youth from committing offences) nor full general deterrence (i.e., deter others from committing offences) were objectives of sentencing under the YCJA, despite the fact that they are adult sentencing objectives in the Criminal Code. The YCJA besides did not provide for the adult sentencing objective of denunciation.

In 2012, Parliament amended the YCJA to permit a youth judgement to include the objectives of denunciation and specific deterrence. However, including these objectives must non result in a judgement that exceeds a proportionate response or is inconsistent with the purpose of sentencing and the mandatory sentencing principles mentioned above, such as choosing a sentence that is almost likely to rehabilitate the immature person.

two. Restrictions on Custody

Under the YCJA, custody sentences are intended to be reserved primarily for violent offenders and serious repeat offenders. As passed by Parliament in 2002, the Act provided that a young person could not be sentenced to custody unless:

  • the young person had committed a violent offence (interpreted as an offence in which the young person caused, attempted or threatened to cause bodily damage);
  • the young person had failed to comply with not-custodial sentences;
  • the young person had committed a serious indictable offence and had a history that indicated a blueprint of findings of guilt; or
  • in exceptional cases where the young person had committed an indictable offence and the aggravating circumstances of the offence were such that a judgement other than custody would accept been inconsistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing.

In 2012, Parliament amended the YCJA past expanding the meaning of violent offence and blueprint of findings of guilt. "Violent offence" is now defined in the Act as an offence in which the immature person causes, attempts or threatens to cause bodily harm or endangers the life or safety of a person past creating a substantial likelihood of bodily harm.

The pregnant of a "blueprint" was expanded to include extrajudicial sanctions. This means that extrajudicial sanctions will be included with findings of guilt in determining whether the immature person has a history that indicates a pattern of offences.

Earlier the court can impose a custodial judgement, it must consider all reasonable alternatives to custody and make up one's mind that there is no reasonable alternative capable of property the immature person accountable in accordance with the purpose and principles of sentencing discussed to a higher place. This ways, for example, that although a young person has failed to comply with previous non-custodial sentences, he or she may receive another non-custodial sentence if the court determines that information technology would exist adequate to hold the immature person answerable.

Although the court must consider alternatives to custody for all offenders, particular attention must be given to the circumstances of immature Aboriginal offenders.

three. Sentencing options

In general, the sentencing options that were available to the courtroom under the YOA, such as probation or community service, were retained in the YCJA. However, the YCJA contains pregnant improvements regarding youth sentencing options.

The YCJA replaced the usual custody order with a custody and supervision order. This sentence is composed of a portion in custody and a portion in the customs.

The YCJA besides introduced a number of new sentencing options that allow youth court judges to deal with the full range of youth criminal offense:

  • Reprimand: A reprimand is essentially a stern lecture or alarm from the gauge in modest cases in which the experience of beingness apprehended, taken through the court process and reprimanded appears to be sufficient to hold the young person answerable for the offence.
  • Intensive support and supervision order: This sentencing option provides closer monitoring and more support than a probation club to help the young person in changing his or her behaviour.
  • Attendance social club: This lodge requires the young person to nourish a program at specified times and on weather condition fix by the estimate. It tin can exist crafted to address the particular circumstances of the immature person; for example, the order might target specific times and days when a immature person is unsupervised and tends to violate the police.
  • Deferred custody and supervision order: This sentencing option allows a young person who would otherwise be sentenced to custody to serve the judgement in the community under conditions. If the conditions are violated, the young person can be sent to custody. This guild is non bachelor to the court for offences in which a young person caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harm.
  • Intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision lodge: This society is a special judgement for serious violent offenders. The court can make this lodge if:
    1. the immature person has been found guilty of a serious violent offence (murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault) or an offence in which the immature person acquired or attempted to cause serious bodily harm and for which an developed could exist imprisoned for more than than two years and the young person had previously been found guilty at least twice of such an offence;
    2. the young person is suffering from a mental or psychological disorder or an emotional disturbance;
    3. an individualized handling plan has been developed for the young person; and
    4. an appropriate program is available and the young person is suitable for admission.

The federal government provides special funding for the provinces and territories to ensure that this intensive rehabilitative sentencing selection is available throughout the country.

Experience nether the YCJA

The number of custody sentences dropped by 64 percent betwixt 2002-03 and 2009-10 (run into Figure 5). All provinces had significant decreases, ranging from 48 pct to 79 percent.

The percentage of guilty cases resulting in custody sentences also dropped from 27 percent in 2002-03 to 15 pct in 2008-09 (encounter Figure half-dozen). While more than ane in four guilty cases resulted in custody in the final yr of the YOA, but one in about 7 guilty cases did then in 2008-09. The percentage of guilty cases resulting in custody also dropped significantly in all provinces and territories.

More than half of all custody sentences take been imposed in cases involving relatively less serious offences such as theft, possession of stolen property, mischief, mutual assault in which no actual impairment was caused and assistants of justice offences.

Canada's overall youth incarceration rate, which includes both custody and detention, has declined by almost 50 percent nether the YCJA, from 13 youths per ten,000 in 2002-03 to seven youths per ten,000 in 2008-09 (run into Figure 7). After a meaning decline in 2003-04, the youth incarceration rate has been stable.

Effigy 5: Number of Custody Sentences, Canada 2002/03 to 2009/10

Figure 5: Number of Custody Sentences, Canada 2002/03 to 2009/10 described below

Figure v - Text equivalent

Description of Figure 5: Number of Custody Sentences, Canada 2002/03 to 2009/10

  • 2002/03 - thirteen,246
  • 2003/04 - eight,683
  • 2004/05 - seven,578
  • 2005/06 - 6,355
  • 2006/07 - v,640
  • 2007/08 - five,609
  • 2008/09 - 5,307
  • 2009/10 - 4,778

Source: Canadian Heart for Justice Statistics, Youth Courtroom Survey

Figure 6: Percentage of Guilty Cases Sentenced to Custody, Canada: 2002/03 to 2009/x

Figure 6: Percentage of Guilty Cases Sentenced to Custody, Canada: 2002/03 to 2009/10 described below

Figure 6 - Text equivalent

Description of Effigy half dozen: Percent of Guilty Cases Sentenced to Custody, Canada: 2002/03 to 2009/x

  • 2002/03 - 27%
  • 2003/04 - 22%
  • 2004/05 - 21%
  • 2005/06 - eighteen%
  • 2006/07 - 17%
  • 2007/08 - sixteen%
  • 2008/09 - 15%
  • 2009/ten - 15%

Source: Canadian Middle for Justice Statistics, Youth Court Survey

Figure 7: Youth Incarceration Rate, Canada: 1996/97 to 2008/09

Figure 7: Youth Incarceration Rate, Canada: 1996/97 to 2008/09 described below

Figure seven - Text equivalent

Clarification of Figure 7: Youth Incarceration Rate, Canada: 1996/97 to 2008/09

  • 1996/97 - eighteen
  • 1997/98 - 17.2
  • 1998/99 - 16.6
  • 1999/00 - fifteen.4
  • 2000/01 - 14.iv
  • 2001/02 - thirteen.v
  • 2002/03 - 12.6
  • 2003/04 - nine
  • 2004/05 - eight.2
  • 2005/06 - 7.5
  • 2006/07 - 8
  • 2007/08 - 8
  • 2008/09 - vii

Charge per unit: Number of youths per 10,000 youths in the population

Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey

Adult Sentences

Background

For nearly 100 years prior to the YCJA, Canada's youth justice legislation allowed immature persons who were 14 years of age or older to exist transferred to adult court under sure circumstances. If the young person was convicted in adult court, the court imposed an adult sentence.

Provisions were added to this nether the YOA and so that if a 16- or 17-yr-one-time was charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual set on, it was presumed that he or she would be transferred to the adult court and, if convicted, would receive an developed sentence. The presumption did not hateful that at that place would be an automatic transfer; it meant that the young person had to endeavor to persuade the court that he or she should remain in the youth court. The transfer hearing was complex and caused significant delays. Many considered it to be unfair because it took identify earlier a courtroom had determined whether or not the immature person was guilty of the offence.

YCJA Provisions

The YCJA eliminated the process of transferring young persons to adult court. Instead, the YCJA established a process whereby the youth courtroom commencement determines whether or not the young person is guilty of the offence and then, under certain circumstances, the youth court may impose an adult sentence. Offences that can lead to an adult sentence are indictable offences committed when the youth was at least 14 years one-time, for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for more than two years. The YCJA, as passed by Parliament in 2002, too included a presumption that youth 14 or older found guilty of certain serious fierce offences would receive an adult judgement. In these circumstances, the onus was on the young person to convince the court that a youth judgement would be appropriate.

In 2008 in the case of R. 5. D.B., the Supreme Courtroom of Canada struck down the presumptive offence provisions of the YCJA equally unconstitutional. The Court establish that the presumption of an adult sentence in the provisions of the YCJA was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' principle of key justice that, in comparison to adults, young people are entitled to a presumption of diminished moral answerability. The Court stated: "Because of their historic period, young people have heightened vulnerability, less maturity and a reduced capacity for moral judgment. This entitles them to a presumption of macerated moral blameworthiness or culpability." (R. v. D.B., [2008] Southward.C.J. No. 25 (S.C.C.))

In 2012, Parliament removed the presumptive offence scheme from the YCJA while retaining Crown applications for adult sentences for youth. Parliament likewise amended the developed sentencing provisions to include the following:

  • If a immature person is 14 years of age or older and is charged with a serious violent offence, the prosecutor must consider applying to the court for an adult sentence. If the prosecutor decides not to utilise for an adult judgement, the prosecutor must suggest the court. A province may decide to change the age at which this obligation is triggered from fourteen to fifteen or 16.
  • A court can impose an developed sentence only if (a) the prosecution rebuts the presumption that the young person has macerated moral blameworthiness or culpability and (b) a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to concur the young person accountable.
  • A young person under the age of eighteen who receives an developed judgement is to be placed in a youth facility and may non be placed in an developed correctional facility. Once the young person turns 18, he or she may be placed in an adult facility.

Experience nether the YCJA

The Canadian Middle for Justice Statistics does not provide statistics on adult sentences under the YCJA.

Custody and Reintegration

Background

As mentioned previously, a significant weakness of the YOA was that it failed to address effective reintegration of a young person into the customs after being released from custody. Under the YOA, a young person could exist released from custody with no required supervision and back up to assistance the young person in making the transition dorsum to his or her customs.

YCJA Provisions

The YCJA includes many provisions to assistance the young person's reintegration into the community. Underpinning the YCJA is the belief that young people tin exist rehabilitated and successfully reintegrated into the customs. The focus of every custody sentence must be on reintegration and on measures aimed at assisting the young person not to re-offend.

1. Custody and Supervision in the Community

Under the YCJA, every catamenia of custody is followed by a period of supervision and back up in the customs, as part of the young person's sentence. This includes custody and supervision orders, intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision orders, and youth sentences for murder. Judges must clearly state in open court the portion of the sentence to be served in custody and the portion to be served in the community.

The YCJA contains a list of mandatory weather that utilize to all immature persons under supervision in the customs. Additional conditions tin exist imposed to support the young person and address his or her needs, too as to manage risk.

If a young person breaches a status while nether supervision in the community, a review is held, which may result in a modify in weather or in the young person being returned to custody. If the provincial manager with responsibility for youth corrections has ordered the young person to be returned to custody, the court volition conduct a review. If the court is satisfied that the young person has breached a status and the breach was serious, information technology may order the young person to serve the residuum of the customs portion in custody. If the breach was not serious, the courtroom may vary the conditions or impose new or boosted conditions.

Before the start of the community supervision portion, the court tin can require the young person to remain in custody if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the young person volition commit an offence causing death or serious damage if released into the customs earlier the cease of the sentence.

2. Reintegration Plans and Reintegration Leaves

When a young person goes into custody, the YCJA requires that a youth worker work with the young person to plan for his or her reintegration into the community. The reintegration programme identifies programs and activities aimed at maximizing the young person's chances for successful reintegration into the community.

When the young person is serving the community supervision portion of the sentence, the youth worker supervises the young person and provides support and help in social club to help the young person respect conditions and implement the reintegration plan.

In addition to customs supervision and back up afterward release from custody, a young person's rehabilitation and reintegration back into the community tin exist promoted prior to release from custody through reintegration leaves. A young person may be authorized to have a reintegration leave for medical, compassionate or humanitarian reasons. Leaves are for a catamenia of up to 30 days, simply the provincial director can renew them.

three. Separation from Adults

A general dominion nether the YCJA is that a immature person who is serving a youth custody sentence is to exist held separate and apart from adults. When a young person serving a youth judgement reaches the age of 18, a judge may authorize the provincial director to place the young person in an adult correctional facility if the courtroom considers it to exist in the best interests of the young person or in the public interest. The YCJA also creates a presumption that if a young person in a youth facility reaches the age of 20, he or she should be transferred from the youth facility to an adult facility to serve the residuum of the sentence. If a young person is placed in an developed facility, special provisions govern how the adult conditional release entitlements apply to the young person. The privacy provisions associated with a youth sentence continue to apply (run into section on Publication below).

As noted above, the YCJA also contains provisions relating to placement of a young person who receives an adult sentence. In 2012, Parliament passed an amendment that provides that a young person who is under the historic period of eighteen at the time of sentencing must be placed in a youth custody facility. Thus, no young person nether 18 tin serve whatsoever portion of a sentence in a provincial correctional centre for adults or a penitentiary.

Publication

Background

A cornerstone of youth justice in Canada is that, as a general rule, the identity of a young person should be protected. The rationale for this rule is that publication of a immature person's name would impede rehabilitation efforts, detrimentally affect the immature person and, in the long run, compromise public safety.

Under the YOA, an of import exception to this full general rule was that the publication of data that identified the immature person was permitted if the young person was transferred to adult court. As a result of this provision, identifying information could be published before a court determined whether or not the young person was guilty of the offence, which was widely considered to be unfair.

YCJA Provisions

Under the YCJA, the general rule confronting publication of identifying information is maintained. Notwithstanding, publication is allowed in certain express circumstances. For example, information that identifies the immature person can be published if a youth court has imposed an adult judgement. As amended past Parliament in 2012, the YCJA too allows publication of identifying information where a youth sentence is imposed for a tearing offence if the following requirements are met:

  • The court must take into account the YCJA's general principles as well as the Act'due south specific purpose and principles of sentencing.
  • The court must determine that the young person poses a significant take a chance of committing another fierce offence and that publishing the identity of the young person is necessary to protect the public against that risk.

Victims

Background

Prior to the YCJA, the youth justice arrangement had been criticized for not fairly recognizing the interests and needs of victims of offences committed by immature persons.

YCJA Provisions

Under the YCJA, the interests and needs of victims are clearly recognized and the role of victims at different stages of the youth justice procedure is specified. Key provisions include:

  • The principles of the YCJA specifically recognize the concerns of victims. Victims are to exist given data near the proceedings and an opportunity to participate and be heard. They are to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy.
  • Victims have a right of admission to youth court records.
  • Victims' participation in community-based approaches to responding to offences is encouraged.
  • If a young person is dealt with by an extrajudicial sanction, the victim of the offence is entitled to be informed as to how the offence was dealt with.

Determination

The YCJA sets out the legislative framework for Canada's youth justice arrangement and provides legislative direction to aid in achieving a organisation that is off-white and constructive.