Youth Crime Essay - Grade: B+ PDF

Preview

Summary

Youth Crime Essay on the YCJA and justice topics...

Description

The YCJA and Aboriginal Youth Justice Prepared by: Connor Scott 100619155 Prepared for: Dr. Hayle CRMN-3027U Date Submitted:

When one thinks of Canada, specific things come to mind that we Canadians take certain pride in. However, often not thought of as much as our other patriotic themes, is our justice system. Canada’s justice system is one of the most sophisticated and world renowned systems across our globe, priding itself on its uniqueness, yet fair justice policies. One aspect of our judicial system that is relatively new, and ground-breaking in terms of how we deal with our Canadian youth offenders, is the Youth Criminal Justice act, or YCJA for short. This however, does not come without its fair share of criticisms. One of the more controversial criticisms with the Youth Criminal Justice Act is that it fails to adapt its justice policies to best help the youth offender in their specific situations; this is evident in how the YCJA fails in its attempts to adequately rehabilitate and reintegrate aboriginal youth into society, evident in their high crime rates, coupled with their massive overrepresentation rates of incarcerated youth in Canada due to the lack of specialized framework specifically designed to deal with aboriginal youth offenders. Throughout this paper I will analyze the Youth Criminal Justice act, specifically the use of extrajudicial measures and how this framework is applied to youth offenders today. I will also compare the youth justice strategies outlined in this act to the prior youth justice policy that was legislation previous to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Young offenders act, or YOA for short. In order to achieve this, I will provide an in depth definition of the policies within the Youth Criminal Justice Act and what they intend to achieve with its justice policies designed to keep offenders from being incarcerated, and geared towards reducing youth recidivism rates. I will also touch upon specifically how these measures fail in regards to aboriginal youth; due to a variety of underlying factors. Said factors include the fact that there is still an overwhelming sense of cultural, and societal disadvantages plaguing these youth and their communities,

contributing to their high recidivism rates, as well as being geographically and socially isolated, which in many cases eventually leads to these aboriginal youth committing crime time and time again due to a lack of resources available to appropriately serve justice in these regions that are designed with cultural influences backing these courts decisions. I will also attempt to construct a policy recommendation compared to that of the Rangatahi & Pasifika courts of New Zealand, and how the Youth Criminal Justice Act could in fact benefit from adapting this foreign style of justice to more adequately handle aboriginal youth offenders in their specific situations with strategies specifically designed for them. However before doing this, it is important to provide some history of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and how it came to be. Now, in an effort to fully grasp and understand the current legal framework that deals with youth crime in Canada, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is crucial to provide some brief history of its induction, its main purposes and goals, as well as the previous youth legal framework that existed prior to it. The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) saw its birth in April of 2003, replacing Canada’s previous youth justice framework, the Young Offenders Act which existed from 1984-2003. With the birth of the YCJA, a much needed refresher came to our Canadian legal system, as the YCJA brought along crucial updates to the previous legislation that would forever change how young offenders are dealt with here in Canada. The YCJA brought a more thorough, diversified strategic plan on how to more adequately deal with these young offenders. Differences from the prior framework, the YOA, included the fact the the YCJA seemingly placed more emphasis on the rehabilitation of the offender, treating sentencing as a true last resort and more so focused on the reform aspect, in attempts to eventually reintegrate these young offenders back into society. Another aspect in which the YCJA differed from the YOA, was new policies that were implemented, including that of extrajudicial measures.

Extrajudicial measures outlined within the Youth Criminal Justice Act are options available to judicial authorities that are effective and timely interventions focused on the correction of offender behaviour, they achieve this by holding the young offender accountable for their malicious behaviour, while simultaneously promoting rehabilitation to curb their behaviour in an effort to have them reintegrated into society without incarcerating them. Extrajudicial measures are available to both police officers, as well as courts, each with their own implications. For a police officer who has made contact with a youth who has committed a crime, the options available to them include: taking no further action as they deem the encounter with police sufficient enough, they can issue a formal warning to the offending youth, or they can issue a caution, which is an even more formal warning to the youth which may include a meeting with the youth and parental figures. Lastly, if none of the prior methods are deemed appropriate, an officer may issue a referral from law enforcement to a community organization or program designed to divert at risk youth away from a life of crime. Aside from police warnings/cautions, an offender can also be issued a crown caution; this is considered more serious as an offender is taken to a courtroom as a more authoritative power is now dealing with the youth offender. Lastly, an option available to the crown is the option to place judicial sanctions upon the youth offender; these typically come in the form of programs or organizations, mostly specific to each province/territory that are approved by the Attorney General. This is provided within legislation that guides the use of these programs as a measure to help rehabilitate youth, with the acceptance of entering the program from the offender themselves (Extrajudicial Measures, Department of Justice Canada. n.d). With all of these options available to our judicial system, one would theorize that these measures are in fact effective, and for the most part youth crime has in fact declined, however one aspect has been

seemingly unaffected, and that is the rate at which aboriginal youth crime, and their incarceration rates have risen. To give some background to this, it is crucial to identify and examine statistics surrounding aboriginal youth and their crime rates, as well as rates of incarceration. To give you an idea of the scale of the overrepresentation of aboriginals within the justice system: Aboriginal youth in 2013-2014 were responsible for 41% of youth admitted to custody or community supervision in Canada, despite making up only 7% of the youth population across the country (Correctional Services Program, 2015). This begs the question of why is such a small percentage of a population, accounting for such a large percentage of youth crime? One must consider the hardships that our aboriginal communities and culture experience and make the connection between that and their high crime rates. It is necessary to recognize the patterns of historic racism and degradation of aboriginal peoples, the stripping of culture in the form of residential schools from these communities, as well as their isolation from society attributed to geographical location when considering the crimes rates of their youth population. “In addition to demographics and historical issues, Aboriginals are over-represented largely as a result of their low socio-economic status. Mainstream criminological theories have consistently linked poverty to a lack of education, employment, and criminal behaviour. Even within Aboriginal communities, it remains true that the more social and economically marginalized within the group, the higher the involvement in the criminal justice system” (La Prairie, 2002). In an effort to better explain this, it is important to identify a link between these factors, and attribute them to a criminological theory to identify why these factors are relevant. Considering the factors mentioned above as variables contributing to aboriginal youth committing crimes at higher rates than their non-aboriginal counterparts in relation to population

size, these can best be interpreted under the sociological criminology spectrum. Sociological criminology. More specifically, social inequalities theory, which considers factors pertaining to a certain ethnic group (in this case being aboriginals) and examines the dynamics of economical discrimination, unemployment, economical poverty, cultural contradictions, and insufficient service distributions (Mohseni, 2011). This criminological theory best applies to the correlation of socioeconomic status, the ethnicity of aboriginals, and best considers factors like their geographical location to help explain why these youths are committing crimes at much higher rates than non-aboriginals relative to their population size. One of the more crucial factors of this theory is the insufficient distribution of services; this ties into my thesis surrounding the fact that many of these aboriginal communities are in remote locations of our nation, areas in which these communities do not have access to the same facilities, programs and organizations designed to help at risk youth offenders, and the resources that are available in these communities, if any at all, are not sufficient enough. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the programs designed to help these youths, are the same programs that are imposed on all youth across Canada, not designed specifically for aboriginals. This is evident in how aboriginal youth crime has stayed constant, or even increased in some years since the introduction of the YCJA, whereas it has impacted the non-aboriginal youth population in a positive way and reduced crime. The lack of reformation programs and organizations available to help aboriginal youth in these remote areas could in fact be attributed to low socioeconomic status in these communities, evident in the fact that the population of over 81% of indigenous reservations across Canada reported median incomes that were below the low-income measure, which stats Canada has determined to be $22,133 per person (Press, 2017). Given that these areas are so far below the poverty line, it can be speculated that not only do these areas not have access to judicial reform programs or

organizations designed to help youth, it is coupled with the fact that they also do not have programs specifically designed to help with their youth, who have different cultural and societal factors than their non-aboriginal counterparts, creating a need for programs designed to deal with aboriginals specifically. The evidence shown above perfectly displays the need for a reform to the way the Canadian judicial system deals with aboriginal offenders. With comparisons to other foreign youth justice policies, the YCJA is certainly up to par, but there is room for improvement. New Zealand, has a set of framework Canada could benefit greatly from, emulating their aboriginal justice policies in the form of their family group conferences, and specific courts dedicated solely to helping aboriginal youth, called Rangatahi-Maori court. Similar to issues outlined with aboriginal youth here in Canada, aboriginal Maori in New Zealand were reported to have felt disconnected with their culture, mass reports of alcohol and drug abuse, social isolation, lack of appropriate consequences for crime in their regions, poverty, discrimination, systematic racism, segregation, and lack of identity and role models. Also, the areas that these Maori youths were residing in lacked information and programs supplied by government departments, thus making the accessibility to the services and programs designed to help youth, inaccessible (Owen, 2001). This lack of programs and courts designed to aid these Maori youths saw the birth of RangatahiMaori courts and programs. New Zealand recognized that Maori youth needed framework specifically concerning their needs of care and protection, thus designing courts that use a family and community centered approach in attempts to reconnect offenders with their culture in efforts to curb their criminal behaviour from a sociological, culture based approach. A large part of their program is family group conferences, these conferences allow for the community elders, family and victims to have a say in punishments imposed upon the youth, whilst still keeping their best

interests in mind. These conferences also attempt to identify underlying societal or cultural links between the offender and their crimes to best develop a plan to rehabilitate these youths. Victims also play an important role in these conferences, as they have the option to veto a decision made in the FGC to send the offender to Rangatahi court. If the decision is made to ultimately send an offender to a Rangatahi court, elders, as well as family members and the victim/victims are still very much involved, these people offer guidance to the offending youth, whist still keeping their cultural and community influences in mind “Rangatahi Courts allow Mãori youth who appear before them an opportunity to learn about who they are and where they are from; an opportunity to participate in Mãori protocols and customs; an opportunity to understand where thy fit in as young Mãori people in New Zealand” (Taumanu et al, 2014). In order to connect these Mãori youth with their culture, they are often called upon to deliver their respective mihi, which is a traditional greeting in the native Mãori language, this attempts to strengthen the bond between the youth, their culture, and what the court is trying to achieve by making them do this to establish a deeper connection. Similar to the Canadian youth justice model, there are programs designed to reform these youth, however where Rangatahi courts differ from our justice model, is that they have their own specific set of programs and organizations specifically designed for the Mãori youth. These programs differ from other programs designed for non-aboriginals within New Zealand as they are specifically designed to rehabilitate these offenders by utilizing their cultural identity, and their communities as a tool to reform and rehabilitate these young offenders, improve their attitudes and behaviour whilst simultaneously strengthening the bond between them, their cultural identity, and their community. This style of justice taking a community based approach in the healing process of young offenders could easily be translated to the Canadian judicial system to more adequately deal with their aboriginal offenders.

Now it is important to realize; simply taking the procedures of the Rangatahi courts, and the programs they use to deal with Mãori youth and applying a direct copy to the Canadian judicial system and the YCJA simply would not work. With that being said however, taking the core principles and foundation behind their reasoning for the need to create special courts, organizations and programs, would benefit our judicial system greatly. Ultimately, the Youth Criminal Justice Act was created to introduce a fresh, new legal framework what was better suited to serve appropriate justice for our youth, whilst still keeping the best interests of the youth intact. This in itself should explain why not all youth can be treated the same, specific things will work for one case, that won’t for another. This is evident in the fact that nonaboriginal crime has decreased, whereas aboriginal crime remains at a constant, or on the rise. Also, a statistic supporting the need for an aboriginal focused court and program system is as follows “Aboriginal offenders currently or previously on community supervision in Alberta and 17% indicated that involvement in culture-based healing programs, ceremonies and relationships with an Elder assisted them while on probation” (AAJO, 2012). Now, if that number could raise to say, 80% of aboriginal youth offenders, the recidivism rate would likely go down, as these young offenders would have a better support system to help guide them through their probation, or whatever community based program they have been placed into. Similar to the Mãori and Rangatahi courts as well, if we could introduce the aboriginal language specific to the offender, it may help increase the cultural bond between them and their community, aiding in the rehabilitative process. Ultimately, it is unclear if this justice strategy will reduce the overall initial percentage of crimes committed by aboriginal youth, however it will reduce recidivism rates. By adapting our current justice policy and making it adequate to deal with aboriginal youth specifically, there will

be a much greater chance that these courts/programs will succeed in their mission of reducing youth crime. In order to effectively evaluate if this new policy is in fact working, it will be important to gather statistics on a yearly basis of aboriginal youths who participate in cultural based programs/courts, and aboriginal youth offenders who do not, and compare recidivism rates to properly gauge if this new policy is working. Along with any other judicial program, this will come at a cost, but a worthwhile one at that; if we can flatten the curve of aboriginal youths incarcerated like the YCJA did for non-aboriginals, it will be money well spent. Diverting funds from another policy isn’t certainly ideal in this situation, but adding new funds to this new initiative will be, if these new programs can better serve our aboriginal youth today, it will give them better futures and lead to them being more productive members of society. Realistically, it will be a lot of logistics; our federal government will have to recognize these areas (typically reservations) that do not have access to adequate judicial programs and services designed for these youths, and implement them. Our government will have to ensure that the legal framework places an emphasis on the cultural specific needs of the offender in order for these programs and services to be effective. Also, our government must take a proactive role and be prepared to alter or make amendments to this framework, as situations can differ greatly as to where it can work, and where it can’t. By supporting this policy, I don’t feel that you would be putting your political future at risk, it is no secret that aboriginal peoples in this country have gone, and continue to go through tremendous hardships, and there is still a lot of work that can be done to help these people. In summary, the current justice framework outlined within the YCJA does not adequately serve the aboriginal youth here in Canada. This is evident in the massive overrepresentation of these aboriginal youth that enter our criminal justice system. A combination of societal and

cultural factors heavily contributes to the rates at which these youths are committing crimes. It is necessary that a specialized court system, as well as programs and services be created and designed specifically to deal with these issues, and to rehabilitate aboriginal youth to ensure a better future for these kids.

Works Cited Aboriginal Administration of Justice Offences Research Project. (2012). Aboriginal

probation client qualitative research report. Native Counselling services of Alberta, BearPaw Research. Calverly, D. (2010) Adult correctional services in Canada, 2008/2009. Juristat 30: 1–32. Correctional Services Program. (2015). Youth correctional statistics in Canada, 127 2013/2014. Juristat (85-002-X): Statistics Canada. Gutierrez, L., Wilson, H., Rugge, T., Bonta, J., & Gutierrez, L. (2013). The Prediction of Recidivism with Aboriginal Offenders: A Theoretically Informed Meta- Analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/Revue Canadienne de Criminologie et de Justice Penale, 55(1), 55–100. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2011.E.51 La Pr...