Take No Prisoners: What Should Canada Do With Its Young Offenders?

In every society there has always been crime. Whether it was simple crimes such as petty theft, dealing of marijuana and vandalism or the most heinous of crimes such as murder, rape and assault. There have always been measures that are taken in order to maintain justice in society. For each crime there is a different sentence or punishment given to each offender for what they have done. However, a serious issue comes into play when those that are under 18 commit these deeds. This leaves many asking the following question: What should Canada do with its young offenders?

Firstly, Webster's Dictionary defines a crime as an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. As we all know, crime is something that has an abundance in all societies. In fact, in Canada before 1908 crimes committed by any person of any age were treated as adults. However, once the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908 was put into place, each offender that was under 18 was to be considered "not as a criminal, but as a misdirected and misguided child". Many years later in 1984, Canada then created a new act known as the Young Offenders Act. However, it was often criticized due to the fact some found it too lenient on the defendant as well as giving out inconsistent and unfair sentences. Due to the criticism of the previous act, on April 1, 2003, the government of Canada established the  Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which officially replaced the previous act. This particular act is still in place today although the Harper government did attempt to make certain policies of the YCJA more severe. However, the Canadian Supreme Court overruled Harper's government on the grounds that "general deterrence is not a principle of youth sentence under the new regime."

Some would say that a person is not born to commit a crime and that there are attributing factors that can cause someone to develop into a criminal. For example, those that are born in a rundown neighborhood and grew up with crimes happening all around them have a tendency to either be involved in crime or have a tolerance for crime. Therefore, when it comes to handing out sentences to a young offender, I believe that the fact they learned this behavior should be taken into account. For example, a 17 year old boy from a bad area of town that was just arrested for dealing drugs should not just be thrown into jail but should be rehabilitated in order for them to become a productive member of society. Essentially, what I believe should be done is that for each offender is that their background should be put into account in order to truly deliver a fair and effective sentence. 

Now, the YCJA's goal is essentially just this as its main goal is to "prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behavior, rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them back into society, and ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offences, in order to promote the long-term protection of the public." This is very effective due to the fact that it is not fair to simply force a young offender into a jail cell and throw away the key. When someone is still very young they have not fully developed both mentally and physically. Secondly, jail is an extremely traumatic experience for anyone but even more so for a young person.

In conclusion, in order for Canada to deliver an effective and fair sentence to a young offender, the background information of each offender must be present in order to do so. As we can see, Canada is a country that is constantly trying to improve its judicial system in order to ensure that everyone is treated equally. The YCJA is a great example of this as we can see our country is moving forward. These young offenders are still children like myself and simply cannot be treated the same way that a fully developed adult is treated. 

Little Animation on the YCJA:

...And Justice For All: How Do I Make Difficult Decisions?

Throughout life every single individual must make problematic and arduous decisions that can affect their future drastically. When faced with these types of decisions, one can only think of several things. Firstly, a person could only begin to imagine the amount of happiness that both they and others would receive out of this decision. Secondly, they begin to think of the implications that making this decision would cause. As we go through life these decisions will continue to bombard us. However, the true question is how should we should come at these decision in an attempt to ensure the greatest outcome. 

To begin, the amount of happiness of both an individual as well as others is very important. For example, the use of steroids in professional sports. As we know, the use of steroids is both frowned upon and against the rules of professional sports as it is considered to be "cheating". However, there is a major conflict when it comes to this subject. Utilitarianism would argue that by taking steroids an athlete can perform at a higher level than all the other athletes. Consequently, making both all the fans as well as many others very happy. However, Deontology would argue that consuming steroids is a morally atrocious deed and should not be done as it breaks several rules. Regarding my own decisions, I usually look towards what would be the considered the Utilitarian choice. I would chose with this side due to the fact that it would result in the most amount of happiness for everyone.

A rather difficult scenario would be the following. Imagine that there were five people with the same blood type that were all in desperate need of organ transplants. Coincidentally, there is a patient in the waiting room that is perfectly healthy and has the same blood type as the five people. Now, there is a very huge and conflicting predicament. Utilitarianism would argue for the one man who is healthy to give up his life and allow the five others to go and live their respective lives. Deontology would argue that this gentleman has the right to live his life. However, my personal decision would be to go towards the teachings of Mill and Bentham. By taking the life of one person, five other lives will be saved. Thereby creating the greatest possible outcome. Which is why I chose to side with Bentham and Mill, as in order for me to make a decision of a large magnitude I do need to think about the total amount of happiness that this choice would produce.

In conclusion, although both Deontology and Utilitarianism both have very convincing arguments for which side one should agree with, I cannot simply make a decision because it is the morally right thing to do. However, this is why I can make a decision based on the amount of happiness will come out of the choice I have made. Consequently, there are some people that when faced with a difficult choice have no idea to do. But, as Geddy Lee once said, “If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice", and I believe we can all agree with that.