Disparities in Criminal Justice System Responses to First-Time Juvenile Offenders According to Indigenous Status

This study explored the intersection between Indigenous status, gender, and age in relation to law enforcement responses to offending in 53,632 first-time juvenile offenders in Australia. Findings demonstrated that Indigenous offenders were more likely to receive a court summons (rather than diversionary alternative) following their first offense compared with non-Indigenous offenders when controlling for gender, age, and the nature and number of charges processed at first offense. No interactions were observed between Indigenous status, age, and gender. Indigenous status predicted receiving a court summons; however, the strength of this relationship diminished when offenders had one-to-two violent charges and when offenders’ first contact occurred after the commencement of the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), which formalized police responses to diversion. Stronger efforts are needed to prevent initial justice system contact and formal processing among Indigenous youth with a focus on community-led early intervention strategies.

The Semantics of Repression: Linking, Opposing, and Linking again Rehabilitation and Protection of Society

Having explored the youth criminal legislation enacted by the Canadian federal government from the year 1857 to the year 2005, the author attempts to demonstrate that youth criminal intervention has moved from the notion of "child protection" to the notion of "protection of society." The significance of this theoretical shift is that, while the former sort of intervention is mostly concerned with the notions of "reintegration" and "inclusion", the latter is concerned with the notions of "deterrence" and "exclusion." For this study, the author first analyzes the societal factors that led Canadian parliamentarians to enact the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908). In addition, she focuses on a specific amendment enacted in the year 1924 that "increased" the number of behaviors to be controlled through criminal law legislation. Second, the author discusses the circumstances that led parliamentarians to enact the Young Offenders Act (1982) and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002). Moreover, she examines an amendment enacted in the year 1995 that modified the declaration of principles of the Young Offenders Act by introducing the notion of "crime prevention." Finally, she analyzes a case law released in the year 2003 by the Quebec Court of Appeal, Québec v. Canada. This decision declared the unconstitutionality of some specific sections of Bill C-7 (current Youth Criminal Justice Act) that allow the disclosure of young offenders' private information and reverse the onus probandi for the imposition of adult sentences on young offenders. The position of the author is that, even though those sections can be unconstitutional, they are coherent with current theoretical trends in the area of youth criminal law intervention.

Jeux de hasard et d'argent chez les adolescents en centre jeunesse : comparaison en fonction des lois

Adolescents under the care of Youth centers present with many risk factors related to the development of pathological gambling. This study describes gambling habits of participants under the Young Offenders Act (YOA) and participants under the Youth Protection Act (YPA), and compare these gambling habits to those of high school teenagers. Face to face interviews were conducted with 74 adolescents from two youth centers in Quebec, Canada. Results show that YOA adolescents report different gambling habits than YPA participants. The YOA adolescents constitute a subgroup at risk of developing gambling problems. Further, adolescents perceive that their time spent in Youth centers has almost no impact on their gambling habits. Findings illustrate the importance to create a prevention program targeting adolescents under the care of Youth centers.

La loi sur les jeunes contrevenants et les masse-médias

The recent enactment of the Young Offenders Act has ended a long period of the rule of the “parens patriae”, philosophy whereby the juvenile court's task was not to administer just punishment for the offence but to diagnose and treat the underlying problems. The new legislation, which follows the “justice model”, attempts to broaden legal rights of accused juveniles while simultaneously making juvenile law more punitive and more focused on specific criminal offences. The present article looks at the way the Canadian mass media reported on this major historical shift in the juvenile justice philosophy. The overt and hidden messages are analysed and the sources of the prevailing definitions explored. It has been found that the majority of informants represented powerful interest groups and organizations. Moreover, the investigated press reports created an image of fundamental consensus, and the new legislation was presented as being beneficial to the society as a whole. The inherent contradictions in the philosophy underlying the new Act were overlooked in favour of an image of a perfect balance whereby ambivalences of the new approach became transformed into virtues. The article tests a number of hypotheses and offers theoretical interpretations of the findings. The applicability of the consensual functionalist, critical functionalist and Marxist orientations is assessed.

L'âge de la responsabilité pénale

The jurisdiction of the youth court depends on the age of the person who appears before it. Since the federal Young Offenders Act came into effect, the minimum limit has been established at twelve years of age. Consequently, sections 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code have been repealed. In the Province of Quebec, before Bill 60 came into effect, the lower age limit was fourteen years. Since the bill came into force, however, the Youth ProtectionAct has become essentially a law of protection and all federal offences must be treated in accordance with the Young Offenders Act. Many reasons persuaded the legislator to lower the minimum age from fourteen to twelve years of age, but it seems that the most convincing was a decline of the age of juvenile criminality. Finally, the Young Offenders ACt establishes the maximum age limit at eighteen years of age and standardizes that age accross Canada from April 1, 1985. Reasons of uniformity, equity and constitutionality have influenced the legislator in setting the upper age limit at eighteen years of age.