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:
Mason, I really enjoyed reading this blog post. I agree with your opinion on the way child offenders should be dealt with in Canada. However, the only thing I found a problem with while reading this post is that I feel that you went a bit too deep and spent too much time in defining what crime is, to me it felt unnecessary. But I did enjoy reading this blog. Good work!
ReplyDeleteI liked how you showed the evolution of the Criminal Justice act, it shows the way Canada perceives young adults has changed over the years.Though, I agree with Jon, you should of went more in depth with your theories analysis of young criminals instead of concentration on the YCJA's regulations. This blog was well put together and informed the reader on the way society deals with young criminals.
ReplyDeleteMason, your post contained many interesting details and I especially enjoyed when you gave an example to justify your explanation of symbolic interactionism. The only aspect I had an issue with was when you explained that the YCJA's goals were to rehabilitate young offenders and reintegrate them into society as I feel this is deceiving considering the YCJA introduced for the first time a law stating that a youth (aged 16 or older) could be sentenced to life in prison, thus they would not be able to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. On the contrary, your blogpost was interesting and I enjoyed reading your thoughts on how Canada should treat its young offenders.
ReplyDeletei'm not romanian, i'm armenian - but here in this piece of sh!t country called romania, there's a saying "the good day is known from its morning". from my personal experiences as well as others', i think the way you begin something dictates the rest of its course. if you begin your life as a criminal then you'll forever be a criminal. but in my books, almost every act can be justified in the right circumstances, even murder torture or rape etc. you'd say hitler was bad because he killed people. well err?.. afterall, he killed jews. and i think all jews are scum so i don't really know if hitler was bad. but if you'd kill hitler? does that mean you'd do something good and not a crime because you prevented more jews being killed? it's very hard to define what's a crime or not unless you analyse all aspects. this is the reason why i try to analyse people more from their personality than what they have done. personality doesn't say what you did, but it says what you'd do under certain circumstances. i don't know about others but for me it's quite easy to tell if a person is good or bad just by looking at his face or hearing his voice.
ReplyDeleteand even if you'd have this self a$$ facking faqqot who commited a crime in his youth - if you release him in society then you must warn the people at his work place or school that he can be a dangerous dude. and if you do that, there's 2 options - either people will stay away from this punk which will affect him, or they'll even get to think that he's a very alright guy althou he did a crime. so people will think that crimes are not such a bad thing. i think once a young punk commits a crime you got to analyse clearly what exactly happened there, why, you got to make a personality analysis of the dude and see if he's likely to repeat the crime, and if yes, then throw him in jail. as for life imprisonments? i don't agree at all. why those sh!theads live what's their purpose on this planet. only to suck money from government funding. they need to be killed, their bodies need to rot and decompose into base materials so they can be recycled and another more important individual can be borned out of their ashes