1 This is another Reaction Paper Assignment for my

1 This is another Reaction Paper Assignment for my Delinquency Course. I have attached an exemplary paper illustrating the types of analysis students were able to produce. This paper earned a grade of A

SOCI 263 Juvenile Crime and Delinquency Reaction Paper #3

The purpose of this assignment is to get you to think about various solutions to the issues we have discussed this term. We covered a great deal of theoretical terrain and discussed the policy implications and legislative implications of each tradition. Now is the time to discuss action, through a critical analysis of the current (and historical) set of solutions we have taken out of our tool chest.

There are specific parts to this assignment you must complete:

1. Define, compare and contrast Judicial versus Extra-judicial interventions. a. For both, make sure you discuss how the policies/approaches have changed over time.

2. The current approach, (the Youth Criminal Justice Act) strives to improve upon previous attempts to fix the "delinquency problem". Identify what you think is the greatest improvement of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. What you think is the biggest failure?

3. Olivo (2005) states that sometimes we are left with the feeling that "nothing works". In your opinion, is it because the policy is applied badly or is it because we simply don’t develop the policy using "real life" situations.

2

Evolution. What would life be without evolution? It surrounds us. Every aspect of our daily life is affects in some way by evolution. Whether it is through technological evolution, biological evolution, which needless to say does not really apply in this case, or sociological evolution. The main point that is brought forth, is that evolution does take place in the way we do things, in the way we deal with certain situations and in the way we look at specific circumstances whether they are of a sociological nature of not. There is some importance to evolution. In fact some times we notice that there was a reason why we used to do things the way we used to, and at times we realize that change, or evolution, was drastically needed. One way or another, we need evolution since it helps us establish what is bad through change and what was good through nostalgic feelings of having done something wrong through evolution. This needless to say applies to every governmental decision but more importantly every governmental policy that is implemented. We have a tendency of believing that evolution within governmental actions is most of the time good for society overall, and in fact why would they adopt policies that would eventually backfire on them. This would just make no sense. Yet one must not forget also that the benefits or detriment of one’s actions or policy could and do vary greatly from one’s perspective to another; what one might see as essentially a good and positive. In other words the effects of evolution is to some extent subjective. This being said, the following paper will deal with on one hand with contrasting Judicial and Extra Judicial intervention, touching on how policy approach have changed over time. We will subsequently touch briefly on the attempts of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to improve upon previous attempts to fix the “delinquency problem”. Lastly focusing on explaining why there seems to be this existing feeling that “nothing is working” in relation to juvenile delinquency.

Judicial Vs. Extra-Judicial interventions.

Through the ages we have come to see the way we deal with juvenile offenders in various ways. They were initially treated like adults, having the same responsibility and having to deal with the same consequences of their actions, since it was believed that they were fully conscious of their actions. Eventually as society advanced, kids who were once seen as economically viable members of society were replaced by technology, this in turn added considerable pressure on

3 moral entrepreneurs into coining laws that dealt with youths more specifically. People slowly started believing that juvenile delinquent deserved a different type of treatment. They believed that kids deserved protection, a chance for rehabilitation and protection from the whole mighty State. i This view lasted until 1984, after many years of criticism regarding the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA),Bill C-61 came into force as the Young Offenders Act (YOA).

ii

This

change was initially seen as warranted and good. Yet its success was short lived since 18 years later, after having failed two times to pass a new bill dealing with juvenile delinquency, the third time it was brought forth as Bill C-7 it passed instating the current Youth Criminal Justice Act. iii It is important to keep this evolutionary pattern in mind in order to understanding what types interventions are present and available to juvenile delinquents. It is possible to clearly see a shift throughout the ages in relation to how we should deal with delinquent youths. As it was mentioned many times in class, the Youth Criminal Justice Act is the embodiment of many theories, their intricacy and their implementation. All of these things are embodied in the YCJA mimicking the evolution of our policies and theories throughout the years in regards to juvenile delinquents.

This paper as it was mentioned above will deal principally with two types of interventions; judicial and extra-judicial. As much as these two terms are to some extent self explanatory they are, it should be said, extremely opposite one from another. One the one hand we have the more traditional way of dealing with delinquency through judicial procedures and we have the highly controversial at times extra judicial procedures. Judicial procedures are basically the normal regular steps one must undertake when someone is caught infringing the law. This mostly consist of the arrest, the labeling of the kid as a juvenile delinquent or offender, the option of detaining the youth pending his trial appearance, after appearing in court to inform the youth of the charges brought up against him, which is primordial that he understands for the sake of the court system’s reputation, he must then face the juridical interim release hearing. The following steps deal mainly with the possibility of imposing on the youth an adult sentence or not all depending on the prosecuting attorney’s analysis of the situation, the trial in itself, the presentence report which plays an important role in ultimately sentencing the youth since it is there to paint a picture of the youths situation, helping make the right type of decisions in relation to his sentence, with lastly the possibility that the sentence he was imposed be reviewed at a later date. iv In other words, judicial interventions mainly consist of the normal judicial procedures

4 youths undergo under normal circumstances. Such has for example, a youth getting caught stealing a bicycle, the police officer then has the option of committing the youth through the whole legal process of being arrested, the possibility of being detained until his appearance, so on and so forth until the possibility of ultimately reviewing his sentence. Clearly here the procedure one that is long, full of intricacies and possibly damaging for the youth. Hence the term being “ caught in the system” or should we say “caught by the system” clearly applies here.

This can be especially true when, for example the youth having been labeled as a thief through the judicial procedure. Especially since, in theory, if the label assigned to the youth is subsequently accepted, then he could eventually re-offend. Forcing him to have to go through the process all over again, this time however he might not be as lucky as getting just a “slap on the wrist” but might get a more stringent sentence. This creating a downward spiral momentum to the youth’s outlook on society and its institutions. Judicial procedure should not by any means be seen as necessarily all bad in relation to what we have established above. Yet the fact remains that sometimes the process is harsher than it should on juvenile delinquents, imposing on them policies and institutional norms better suited for dealing with adults. This can be seen as causing them to feel even more alienated from a system they initially seem to distrust and feel distant from.

There are alternatives however to having to go through the normal legal procedures.

These alternatives come into existence as extra-judicial measures. Just has the name brings forth, these are mostly measures that exits to deal with juvenile delinquents that are external to the normal legal procedures. There was a steady increase in criticism towards the way things were being done by the Juvenile Delinquents Act, in the sense that there was a rising dissatisfaction with the overall paternalistic approach of the Juvenile Delinquency Act. v One of the four main critics brought against the Juvenile Delinquency Act was that it seemed to lack in regards diversion programs, which were gaining in popularity at that particular time. vi This overall new alternative to incarceration can be seen as partly coming from the belief that incarcerating youths who could be “saved” with other youths would do nothing but increase their chances of reoffending. Hence the utility of having these kids with normal children and adults in order to provide them with positive example and support. vii Although the Young Offender Act was initially based on the right principles and seemed to have built up on the right type of criticism, it nonetheless was doomed right from the beginning due to contradictions coming from within,

5 which eventually brought forth abuse of judicial discretion by judges. viii Clearly then the Yong Offenders Act was doomed from the very beginning due to its structural inefficiency.

Furthermore, the same criticism rose again in regards to extra-judicial measures. Except this time the criticism was that the Young Offender Act failed where it promised it was going to improve from the Juvenile Delinquents Act, there was actually a movement wishing to move back to the previous legislation. ix Having touched briefly on the underlying causes that brought forth extrajudicial measures, they can be seen as really coming into play through the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Although the idea came into play during the era of the Juvenile Delinquency Act as something that was seen as initially lacking. The reform and instating of the Young Offenders Act never really established what it sought out to do in relation extra-judicial measures. Only really coming into play through the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In fact, part 1 of the act deals specifically with extra-judicial measures. Hence, they now form a major part of the reformed act with specific the underlying principles, the objectives and the types of extra-judicial measures that are available. x One of the most important article of the act in regards to extra-judicial measures has to be article 6 which states that extra-judicial measures must be considered for every individual xi, to the point where the police officer must actually explain why he opted for criminal charges instead of resorting to extra-judicial measures. xii Clearly then, those that coined Bill C-7 kept in mind some of the criticism they were facing, incorporating within its body a section that dealt specifically with extra-judicial measures, this in turn guaranteeing a certain level of improvement from the previous two acts, especially over the Young Offenders Act, which it should be said permitted the use of extrajudicial measures of diversion yet were clearly underused. xiii The overall goal of the use of these measures, was to not only divert the youth from the legal system, but was also seen as an adequate way of dealing with youths who seemed to regret their offending behavior. There is in fact three types of measures that can be used to deal with delinquent youths; warning, caution and referrals. xiv Each type should be seen as a possibility of the youth to be dealt with according to his needs all depending on the circumstances of his actions. Furthermore, to somewhat play has a guarantee that the program’s success, the youth is also asked to consent to the type of diversion method used in his case.

xv

This not only shows a drastic change in position of the

juvenile legal system, wishing to include the youth on a more personal level within the process

6 of his case. But also demonstrates a shift from both previous acts, now seeing the involvement of the youth as primordial to the overall success of the process.

There is also a fourth option on the table in regards to dealing with delinquent youth, who this time cannot be dealt properly through warning, caution or referral. These are used as a last resort prior to channeling the youth through the normal legal judicial procedures. These last types of measures can be seen as a last chance given to the youth by “sanctioning” him in relation to section 10 of the act. xvi These sanctions should be understood as a last safety net for the youth prior to potentially “getting lost within the system”.

These measures are needless to say, leaps and bounds, beyond what previously existed under previous both acts. The policies and overall philosophy of the new revamped Youth Criminal Justice Act, clearly brings forth the obligation on those who have the power to divert the youth from the legal system, the need to at least consider every youth eligible to enter the provincially available extra-judicial measure that are at his disposal. Yet in this case what is in essence extremely good, can also be seen as having an underlying idea that things could be different at the same time. This mostly due to the fact that most of these programs seem to be provincially funded, hence they are unfortunately not on level playing field. Demonstrating how some provinces would be more readily adapted in dealing with youths being diverted into extrajudicial programs than others. Yet despite being essentially good in nature, diversion methods such has community programs, victim- reconciliation programs xvii, can be seen as being unequally funded across the country, which could potentially be counter productive towards the overall apparent success of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The good and the bad.

Following the same train of thought mentioned above, it is clear to see that the YCJA has improved on some of the failures of the other two acts. Furthermore, one can also notice that the overall philosophy in regards to juvenile crime has changed drastically over the last century, from being paternalistic in essence throughout the reign of the Juvenile Delinquency Act, from shifting to a more “get though on crime” approach of the Young Offenders Act, back to a more “lenient” approach to juvenile crime with the enactment of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In essence, the evolution from one act to another was to some extent warranted since it was based on the overall view and feel of the current juvenile legal situation. Yet in reality, some of the

7 changes that were apparently necessary by the situation at the time resulted in nothing more than an increase sense that the overall system could be so much more.

However, despite the acts lack of overall perfection, it was able to bring forth what is without a doubt one of the greatest overall modification to how youths got treated through the juvenile legal system; diversion programs or as one might also call them, extra-judicial interventions. As it was mentioned above these measures are highly revolutionary in the sense that youths who were once forced to be dealt with through the legal system, were now forced to be at least considered for extra-judicial measures. As it has been established in class, a get tough on crime doesn’t work in 100% of cases. This especially ties in with the various shift in ideologies and polices that took place over the years ranging from a get tough on crime; “lets incarcerate the youth to deal with the problem�, to a more soft stance on crime focusing on trying to understand the underlying reasons explaining why youths act the way they act, but also trying to rehabilitate the youth.

Without a doubt this belief that youths could be diverted through various measures available to the provinces is in fact good. Yet this can be seen at the same time as one of the greatest downfall of the diversion programs that exits. As it was mentioned above, the diversion programs are dealt with on a provincial level, resulting in great disparity throughout the country in the overall effectiveness of the measures taken towards youth delinquency. This clearly raises question towards which province is better equipped with dealing with juvenile delinquents through their extra-judicial programs. Creating great differences in the way youth are treated by the same system within the same country. Perhaps even creating a sub-culture within the youths that would help them establish which provinces are more prone into using extra-judicial programs over others. Possibly creating a map of where to and not to offend in relation to the probability of being diverted from the system.

Clearly then, the YCJA greatest strength is at the same time one of its greatest weakness.

The fact that the programs are provincially funded greatly hinders the capacity of such programs as well as its effectiveness and its availability. Playing on the idea that kids were running amuck and needed to be controlled and dealt with swiftly. As vivid as this seemed to be accurate at the time, this has come to be seen as being drastically over blown since as it was stated in class, most of the crime juvenile delinquents are usually seen as committing are of less violent nature, property related and status offences. Needless to say this over emphasized idea that society as a

8 whole was going down the drain at an alarming rate due to youth violence was nothing but public manipulation which resulted in this wide spread belief that something had to be done to save society as a whole. Although is it plain to see that this “panic” phase was to some extent unwanted. It nonetheless benefited the overall evolution of the juvenile legal system by instating in the YCJA a more appropriate approach to youth problems to say the least.

The YCJA can bee seen as initially setting up framework for a more efficient juvenile legal system and it indeed did so by incorporating various reforms into the core of the act. Yet by doing this, it also brought to our attention another underlying problem that exits in relation to dealing with juvenile delinquency; “provincial differences”. In other words, we closed one book, thinking of having written the last sentence of the last paragraph. Then all of a sudden we are force to take into consideration a whole new set of factors and variables that hinders the application of the act as it was intended. Forcing us to go back to the drawing board to figure out where things went wrong and what could be done to compensate for these apparent built-in discrepancies. Showing that, despite having accomplished a lot since the Juvenile Delinquency Act, we needless to say have still a long way to go in order to deal with youth delinquency in an appropriate, efficient way across the country.

Why does nothing seems to work?

This is without a doubt the “million dollar” question everyone is asking himself in relation to the juvenile legal system. In reality, things should work, we have constantly built up from our mistakes, we have constantly evolved in philosophy, we now believe in rehabilitation as a valid option. So why is everything seem to be going wrong? Why are we left with this feeling of failure towards our youths trapped in the system? Why can’t we seem to hit the nail on the head?

There is no clear-cut answer as to why things seem to be going so bad. We probably have as many theories of what went wrong as we have people who asked themselves that question.

Some bring forth valid points, while others miss the mark altogether. Yet has it was said in class countless times, what is important is not dealing with the problems but more importantly dealing with the said situation that causes the delinquency and crime.

Clearly then, a shift in perspective is greatly needed. We need to change our perspective from “dealing with the situation” to “preventing the situation”. The YCJA as been able to take a

9 considerable step towards this overall direction, yet recent Conservative criticism has raised the belief once again that having a rehabilitative perspective downplays the overall quality of the juvenile legal system, and that it is time once again to get “tough on crime”. Yet this could be understood as a mere political maneuver in light of possibly winning a re-election bid. After all, when was the last time a political party won office by claiming that they were going to be “soft on crime”? People want to believe that the government they are electing is one of change and action, and this is what the Conservative are doing. Tying this in with the media who has a tendency of over emphasizing the negative to the detriment of the positive, it is only normal that there is this general feeling that the current system is slowly failing, putting more fuel on an already overblown fire.

Furthermore, we can also look at the fact that we have a tendency of turning a deaf ear to the screams of help and concern of those who are in fact trapped and or dissatisfied with the system. Believing as it was mentioned in class, that we know what is best for the youth regardless of his situation. Yet this lack of communication and reliance of “top to bottom” flow of information is counterproductive. Instead of listening to the youths, trying to understand their perspectives, their point of views, and hearing their scream for help. We tell them: This is what you want! Because we say so! That would be like giving a five year old kid a calculator for his birthday, because the parents know what is best.(obviously taking into consideration that he did not want a calculator) Yet was is really counter productive is not only the fact that we have a tendency of believing we know what is best for others, at the same time it does nothing to alleviate the pressure youths are currently living. Hence, not only are we “shooting ourselves in the foot” by not listening to our troubled youths. We are at the same time perpetuating a situation that could be considerably lessened by simply listening to what is said.

Clearly then, our feeling that nothing seems to be working is partly justified and partly unjustified. We should listen and keep on listening to the youth, providing them with the social community program they deemed would best to help their current situation. But at the same time turn a deaf hear to the media which seems to only exacerbate the juvenile delinquency situation towards nothing more than a case of “deja vue” with the Young Offenders Act of the 80’s and 90’s which, as it was already previously mentioned, failed to do what it sought out to do in the first place. So why should we align ourselves up for another failure, since we know that getting tough on crime is not always the best solution. It sounds good on paper, but hardly yields any

10 considerable effects in real life. We should learn from our mistakes and build up from them, not set ourselves up for yet another one.

In conclusion The above text has proven that one thing is primordial in the application and the creation of an adequate framework for dealing with delinquent youths: evolution. In fact, we can see how each level of criticism whether it was concerning the Juvenile Delinquency Act, the Young Offenders Act and even the Youth Criminal Justice Act, showed a shift in policy, a shift in perspective and what people perceived at the time as an evolutionary step forward. Furthermore, they also demonstrate an evolution in the way critic and moral entrepreneurs perceived the most appropriate way of dealing with juvenile crime and delinquency through the implementation of extra-judicial measures programs available as an option to the more traditional legal procedures.

Yet despite being good in essence, extra judicial measures have their fair share of issues in regards to unequal implementation and availability through the country due to provincial funding. This in turn does not help our perspective that nothing seems to be working, which can be seen as partly due to the media’s fault, which is then subsequently fed on by the government with the hope of scoring some points with the electorate in light of future elections. All of this energy being spent with the hope of regaining office, allocating the programs deemed more appropriate for the troubled youth coming from a top-down relationship, instead of opening up a bottom-up dialogue.

Needless to say, evolution is key in dealing with our delinquent youth. They know what they want, and obviously we should listen. Not only would this be more productive in the long run, but would also provide us greater understanding in our search of preventing delinquency by gaining insight on the underlying reason of why it exists. This would without a doubt be more appropriate than throwing them a “life line riddled with holes” which is what the Conservatives government seems to aligning themselves to do. Yet how can someone not drown if the only tool we have to give him gives him a 50/50 chance of survival due to structural defects?

i

Olivio Laurence, Cotter Ralph, Bromwich Rebecca. “Youth and the Law: New Approaches to Criminal Justice and Child Protection.” Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd. 2007. Toronto, Canada, p 104-105 ii Ibid. p. 107 iii Ibid. p. 110

11

iv

“The Youth Criminal Justice Act: The Legal Procedures” Justice Quebec. Updated May 23, 2007. Accessed November 29, 2007. http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/projud-a.htm#measures v Olivio Laurence, Cotter Ralph, Bromwich Rebecca. “Youth and the Law: New Approaches to Criminal Justice and Child Protection.” Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd. 2007. Toronto, Canada, p 106 vi Ibid. p. 106 vii Ibid. p. 106 viii Ibid. p.106-107 ix Ibid.p.109 x Ibid. p. 232-233 xi Ibid. p. 233 xii Ibid. p. 137 xiii Ibid. p.137 xiv Ibid. p.233 xv Ibid. p.138 xvi Ibid. p.139 xvii Ibid. p. 140