scholarly journals Aboriginal Youth Overrepresentation in Canadian Correctional Services: Judicial and Non-Judicial Actors and Influence

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nate Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Relative Proportion ◽  
Probation Officers ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Youth Offenders ◽  
Aboriginal Youth ◽  
Incarceration Rate ◽  
Correctional Services ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Youth Incarceration

The crisis of Aboriginal over-incarceration in Canada is one of the most well-documented features of our Criminal Justice System. This crisis is especially profound in the youth context. While the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) has reduced Canada’s overall youth incarceration rate in recent years, the relative proportion of detained Aboriginal youth has actually increased. This article explores Aboriginal youth overrepresentation in correctional services under the YCJA in an attempt to discern why it has been less effective at reducing custody rates for Aboriginal youth compared to their non-Aboriginal peers. This article suggests that the YCJA has failed to remedy Aboriginal youth overrepresentation because it has focused too heavily on sentencing principles and judicial discretion. It is argued that more attention must be paid to the earlier stages of the criminal justice process during which Police, Crown Attorneys, and Probation Officers exercise low-visibility discretion in ways that disproportionately circumscribe the eventual range of sentencing options available to Aboriginal youth offenders.

scholarly journals The Misinformed Versus the Misunderstood

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Isaac Heo
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Youth Crime ◽  
Indigenous Youth ◽  
Aboriginal Youth ◽  
Youth Criminal Justice Act ◽  
Youth Incarceration

The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) came into effect in 2003 as a response to the overincarceration of youth that occurred under its predecessor, the Young Offender’s Act (YOA). Parliament’s intention was clear in repealing and replacing the YOA in favour of the more restorative YCJA: no longer would custody be considered an appropriate response to youth crime. More than a decade has passed since the introduction of the YCJA, and statistics reveal that it has had incredible success in reducing the rate of overall youth incarceration. What remains problematic, however, is the persistent and prevailing issue of the overincarceration of Indigenous youth. The purpose of this article is to unpack the complexity of this issue, identify its causes, and to ultimately propose different strategies to help reduce a custodial response to Indigenous youth crime. In achieving this goal, the article will begin with an overview of the YCJA and an exploration of its restorative provisions to argue that the legislation itself is not at fault. The article will then provide current statistics on the overincarceration of Indigenous youth, and subsequently, examine some of the most popular explanations as to why the issue continues to persist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the article will conclude by proposing several strategies – such as the implementation of more Aboriginal Youth Courts – to better address the overincarceration of Indigenous youth moving forward.

The Agreement of Uncontroversial Evidence and the Presumption of Innocence: An Insoluble Dilemma?

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Duff
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Relationship

On 1 April 1996, a rather odd provision was introduced into the Scottish criminal justice process, namely a duty on both prosecution and defence to try to agree uncontroversial evidence in advance of criminal trial.1 As far as the writer is aware, such a provision is unique, although the philosophy underlying its introduction is not totally alien to inquisitorial systems of criminal justice.2 What is particularly peculiar about this duty is that there is no sanction for a failure, however unreasonable, to agree uncontroversial evidence.3 The lack of a sanction resulted from a concern that the creation of any penalty would impinge unjustifiably upon the rights of the accused. The intention in this article is to explore in detail the relationship between the duty to agree uncontroversial evidence and the position of the accused, and to suggest that the imposition of a sanction for a breach of this duty is not as problematic as was thought by those responsible for the legislation.

A Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Kings County District Attorney's Office Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) Program

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary A. Zarkin ◽  
Laura J. Dunlap ◽  
Steven Belenko ◽  
Paul A. Dynia
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Treatment Alternative ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Kings County ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Benefit Cost

In October 1990, the Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) District Attorney's Office implemented the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program to divert nonviolent felony drug offenders from prison to community-based residential drug treatment. This article presents an estimate of the costs and benefits of the DTAP program based on a cohort of DTAP participants and prison comparisons who entered treatment or prison in 1995–1996 and were tracked for 6 years. The analysis focuses on the criminal justice system (CJS) costs associated with criminal recidivism. Findings show that the DTAP program is cost-beneficial compared to the usual criminal justice process (benefit-cost ratio equals 2.17 after 6 years).

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Korban Tindak Pidana Pencurian Ditinjau Dari Kajian Victimlogi (Studi Putusan No : 20/Pid.B/2017/PN. Mdn)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-50
Author(s):  
Jhovindo Sitorus ◽  
Rizkan Zulyadi ◽  
Wessy Trisna
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Victim Protection ◽  
Article 5

Protection against victims of theft is a protection according to Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims, all efforts are to fulfill rights and provide assistance to provide security to victims that must be carried out by the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) or other institutions according to criteria. This protection is given at all stages of the criminal justice process within the judicial environment. The following are the rights of victims and witnesses in Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims Article 5. The research method in this paper is a normative method that collects library data. The results and discussion of this study is about the protection of victims of theft based on the decision number: 20 / Pid.B / 2017 / PN. Mdn, based on the principle or theory of justice is not fair because there is no restitution or compensation to the victim, and the judge's consideration is to pay attention to things that are lightening and burdensome and pay attention to the absence of justification and forgiveness reasons for imposing a criminal sentence in the form of imprisonment for 2 years against the perpetrators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document