Sociology 2267A/B Chapter Notes - Chapter 9: Young Offenders Act, Violent Cases, Estonian Kroon

80 views14 pages
Chapter 9- Going to Court:
Introduction:
Info youth justice readily avail discussion and analysis since inception YOA- not all info
comparable over time b/c dely intro 16-17 y/o to system, not all provs initially
participated in sending court stats to Ottawa and intro YCJA and imp procedural and
substantive changes over time
Able ident trends application YOA principles, debate cont YOA reforms and eventual
replacement w YCJA
The court:
A profile:
Court case decline attributable YCJA b/c police charges also decreased dramatically
during period and caseloads directly impacted by changing police practices- not all
attributable changing leg b/c declines began long before new leg
Most caseload growth through YOA years came from increases in admin and YOA off
cases; failure appear cases increased 10% and YOA cases increased 33%
After mid-1990s, overall caseload began steadily decrease, admin cases fluctuated and
cont increase until 1999-2000
Through YCJA years, admin cases dropped overall by 26%- admin offences still 3rd
largest category off going to court, including YCJA off, accounted almost 1/5th court
caseload 2011-2012, increased prop 2006-2007
Large part long-range court caseload decrease attributable steady decline cases coming
before court for property crimes= attributable more use extrajudicial measures minor
property offences (also apparent violent off)
2011-2012 most common youth court cases involved property off- most common theft
Boys make up greatest proportion youth going to court, but numbers declining comp w
girls and older youth more common youth court than those 12-15 and charges more
serious as court pop gets older (only true boys)
Girls always charged and sent court younger ages than boys- increase girls going to court
largely accounted for by admin (failure to comply) and violence off charges
2011-2012- fraud, disturbing the peace and failure to appear most common girls’ cases in
court
In any one year, repeat off make up about 1/3 court cases- 35% conv cases 1999-2000
repeat off, 10% persistent off- youth w 3/more prior convictions
Repeat off more involved property crime than violent off- more boys in court repeat off
than girls, 11% persistent off boys and 5% girls
Close to 2/3 conv young adults b/w 18-25 had at least one previous youth court
conviction and almost 4 in 10 had multiple youth court convictions- not mean repeat off
nec go on to adult court, only large prop adult off have youth court records
Boys age onset crim activity increases steadily and peaks 16-18 and girls peaks 15 and
then drops substantially
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 14 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
Pretrial detention:
Interim release- provisions that allow an arrested person to be released into the comm,
under specific conds, while waiting for court appearance; commonly ref to as bail
YCJA requires young people held in detention prior trial be detained separately from
adults, unless no youth facility avail/ unsafe do so- doesn’t apply youth 18-20= allows
held adult prov facilities
Judicial interim release provisions Crim Code require young person be brought before
youth court judge/ justice of peace within 72 hours of arrest
Crim code provides 2 reasons pretrial detention:
o Primary grounds- court convinced custody nec ensure youth will appear in court
o Secondary grounds- court believes custody nec public protection
Also allows tertiary grounds for detention- sits judge may consider detention nec in order
maintain confidence in admin justice (should rarely be used)
Imp pretrial charge YCJA specifically prohibits placing young off in pretrial detention as
substitute for approp child protection, mental health/ other social measures
YCJA also carried presumption detention not nec under certain conds- required court
presume pretrial det not nec if, on conviction, young person wouldn’t be sent to custody
b/c YCJA restrictions on committal to custody (youth justice court judge/ justice may
order young person detained in custody)
YOA intro resp person as option detention for court and YCJA kept and turned into
obligation of court- can release young off if sat resp person willing assume resp and
control of youth
Resp person, could be parent, some other adult relative/ fam friend, makes application for
release and examined by court det if suitable alt to custody for young person- youth may
also be released if resp person agrees forfeit money/ some security if violates conds
release- YCJA also allows accused youth refuse this type release
Under YOA, method release highly underutilized- main reason offered by judges= youth
already out of control of parent and/or child protection agencies (didn’t consider resp
person)
Youth doesn’t follow direction person custody been released (/YCJA off)/ fails comply w
conds release- Crim Code off breach of (bail) conds- may be charged and returned court
face additional charges (vast majority released had imposed conds)
Nunn commission recommended amend and simplify statutory provisions rel pre-trial
detention young persons so section 29 stand on own w/o interaction other statutes/
provisions YCJA
Profile:
Number young persons held in pretrial detention increased sub under YOA- YCJA not
reduced high use pretrial detention- more than half youth in custody on any given day
being held in remand
YCJA does appear have impact on admissions to remand in terms of seriousness off-
fewer youth w minor off charges and breach probation charges being detained
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 14 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
2010-2011- 62% admissions non-violent off and most common type offences leading
remand admission were admin- 40% involved off other than property/ violent
Use remand consistently high Manitoba (5x overall rate), Yukon and NWT and lowest
for Newfoundland and Labrador as well BC- much increase due to increases high provs
and decline past 5 years all provs except MN
Majority youth admitted pretrial detention 16 and 17, but among 14 and 15 y/o, more
girls detained than boys- girls also detained more often minor off and aborig youth far
more likely held in detention than non-aborig youth (aborig youth accounted 6% youth
pop and 27% admissions to det) and aborig girls more likely be detained than boys
Between 2004-2009 proportion aborig youth held in remand steadily increased- aborig
youth also detained longer than non-aborig youth
Use remand not decreased w YCJA and may even be increasing, length stays in remand
decreased- 2002-2003, avg length stay youth in remand 21 days, w 1/2 being released in
less than one week
Pretrial facilities vary considerably across country- some det group homes and detention
facilities offer school, recreational and counselling progs (some don’t offer progs in det
facilities and other jurisdictions don’t even have det facilities)
Aborig youth often removed comm b/c lack detention facilities and some cases youth det
adult facilities- 2007 Alberta prov court allowed transfer adult facility, arguing youth’s
behav on operation youth facility and peers not in public interest
Issues of widening the net:
Interp some courts section 29(2) as prohibition against det raised concerns law-and-order/
crime-control lobby that ability hold youth in custody too lim- fed gov took this position
advocating Bill C-10 revisions in this section- courts not lim= through some court’s
interp legislation
Now given widespread use det and Bill C-10’s revisions to section 29, likely increased
use pretrial det
Disagreement by courts and Nunn Commission= absence def violent off and serious off,
as well as vague def serious violent off in YCJA- omission defs allowed considerable
latitude around det and custodial decisions for courts
Violent off not simply something less serious than serious violent off and Supreme Court
CN ruled off youth not violent b/c didn’t cause, attempt cause/ threaten cause bodily
harm and MN Court Appeal ruled only intention young person relv making serious
violent off designation
Bill C-10 amendments YCJA likely result more pretrial det by lim judicial lat in det and
custodial decision-making
Bill C-10= serious violent off means off under 1 following provisions crim code: first-
degree/ second-degree murder, attempt commit murder, manslaughter/ aggravated sexual
assault (used be def off commission young person causes/ attempts cause serious bodily
harm)
Added defs violent off and serious off:
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 14 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents