Post by NewsHound on May 13, 2005 21:53:12 GMT -4
The Young Offender’s act came to life in 1983/1984 replacing the Juvenile Delinquent Act. The public has concerns as to the violent crimes committed by those from twelve years of age to eighteen, how it is escalating out of control, and why the YOA (Young Offenders Act) is ‘soft’ on crime. How well these matters are supported by evidence concerning the extent of youth crime is produced in a media induced, ‘moral panic’. Specific deterrence, incapacitation, and transfer to the adult system are supported by some as answers to the problem of youth crime. Theories regarding solutions to youth crime encompass a more narrow set of legal rules, shaming sentences, and reintegrative shaming. Personally, I prefer what is commonly called the diversion program. Despite the fact that some think the Young Offenders Act flawed, it continues to accomplish the task it was created for which is to rehabilitate rather than incarcerate.
In a study to compare changes from 1986 to 1992, on a per capita basis, the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 3) highlights that offenses against persons (i.e. violence) committed by youth increased 98% in that time period. Although the violent offenses recorded may have doubled in six years this may not reflect an ‘actual’ increase in violent crimes committed. The Commissioner’s Report (1993) discusses how the rising rates of violence in British Columbia must be put into context: adults rather than youths are responsible for an overwhelming majority of violent crimes. As well, increasing youth violence, is being experienced internationally regardless of the different types of justice systems employed to address these crimes.
The Commissioner’s Report (1993) offers some clarification by inferring that this ‘actual’ increase in crime may be representative of ‘substantial increases in sexual offenses committed by young persons (and adults) [which] may be the result of an increased willingness of victims to report these crimes, improved police investigation techniques and an increased likelihood of police recommending charges in these cases’ (p. 4). In layman’s terms the same amount of violent crime is being committed, but there just might be more offenders reported, apprehended, and charged. Added to those crime fighting factors a lower public tolerance for youth crime and a greater willingness for police to lay charges in the so called less serious offenses, such as level 1 offenses, which comprise a large proportion of violent youth crime all of which may account for the apparent increases in violent youth crime. For example The Commissioner’s Report (1993: 4) sheds some light on the issue of a minor school yard fight which formerly might have been addressed by the school may now result in the police being called in, which leads us into the not so ‘soft’ YOA.
In the following statement the Commissioner’s Report (1993) describes the common misconception of the YOA being ‘soft’ on young offenders, is indeed a misunderstanding. ‘The near doubling of the rate of incarceration which followed the implementation of the YOA in British Columbia belies the commonly held perception that the sentencing provisions of the Act are soft on youth crime’ (p.15). While incarceration is indeed an important part of the prescribed punishment we must be aware that the YOA is not soft when it comes to enforcing custody terms as laid out in the Commissioner’s Report (1993). ‘More than one-half of the young offenders committed to custody serve every single day of the original sentence imposed by the court and that, on average, young offenders serve 85 to 90% of the original custody time ordered by the court’ (p.8). In comparison, in the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 8) some may find it interesting and inappropriate that with the rise in adult crime adults serve on average, less than 60% of their sentences. However alternative methods of correction for minors chronicled in the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 8) such as fines, and probation which can, through impositions of conditions such as community service, curfews, restrictions on associates and areas, and residency requirements result in a considerable degree of intrusion into and control of the lives of young offenders, and may also play a vital role in the breakdown of sentencing.
Another common misconception by the people of Canada is that youth crime is escalating out of control in our country. In fact youth crime is doing anything but escalating out of control. Corrado and Markwart (1992) remind us that ‘the total number of juveniles charged [from 1986-1989] remained stable over the three year period’ (p.166). Additionally in comparing changes from 1986 to 1992 on a per capita basis the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 3) discusses how youth crime in total increased by 2%; which in comparison adult crime increased by 10%. So it seems that these statements and statistics verify that the public’s conception of escalating youth crime is indeed a false one. In fact in the past several years, The Commissioner’s Report (1993: 14) supports findings that from 1986-1993 police statistics indicate that youth crime in general, has not increased, with the exception of violent crime. The Commissioner’s Report (1993) says that in 1993 64% percent of Canadians polled in an opinion poll expressed the belief that they felt the behavior of young people had ‘become worse’ in the past five years. However it has been well documented by research in the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 2) that the Canadian public believes crime rates are substantially higher than they actually are. Research has also established that the news media is the principal source of this public delusion.
In a study to compare changes from 1986 to 1992, on a per capita basis, the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 3) highlights that offenses against persons (i.e. violence) committed by youth increased 98% in that time period. Although the violent offenses recorded may have doubled in six years this may not reflect an ‘actual’ increase in violent crimes committed. The Commissioner’s Report (1993) discusses how the rising rates of violence in British Columbia must be put into context: adults rather than youths are responsible for an overwhelming majority of violent crimes. As well, increasing youth violence, is being experienced internationally regardless of the different types of justice systems employed to address these crimes.
The Commissioner’s Report (1993) offers some clarification by inferring that this ‘actual’ increase in crime may be representative of ‘substantial increases in sexual offenses committed by young persons (and adults) [which] may be the result of an increased willingness of victims to report these crimes, improved police investigation techniques and an increased likelihood of police recommending charges in these cases’ (p. 4). In layman’s terms the same amount of violent crime is being committed, but there just might be more offenders reported, apprehended, and charged. Added to those crime fighting factors a lower public tolerance for youth crime and a greater willingness for police to lay charges in the so called less serious offenses, such as level 1 offenses, which comprise a large proportion of violent youth crime all of which may account for the apparent increases in violent youth crime. For example The Commissioner’s Report (1993: 4) sheds some light on the issue of a minor school yard fight which formerly might have been addressed by the school may now result in the police being called in, which leads us into the not so ‘soft’ YOA.
In the following statement the Commissioner’s Report (1993) describes the common misconception of the YOA being ‘soft’ on young offenders, is indeed a misunderstanding. ‘The near doubling of the rate of incarceration which followed the implementation of the YOA in British Columbia belies the commonly held perception that the sentencing provisions of the Act are soft on youth crime’ (p.15). While incarceration is indeed an important part of the prescribed punishment we must be aware that the YOA is not soft when it comes to enforcing custody terms as laid out in the Commissioner’s Report (1993). ‘More than one-half of the young offenders committed to custody serve every single day of the original sentence imposed by the court and that, on average, young offenders serve 85 to 90% of the original custody time ordered by the court’ (p.8). In comparison, in the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 8) some may find it interesting and inappropriate that with the rise in adult crime adults serve on average, less than 60% of their sentences. However alternative methods of correction for minors chronicled in the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 8) such as fines, and probation which can, through impositions of conditions such as community service, curfews, restrictions on associates and areas, and residency requirements result in a considerable degree of intrusion into and control of the lives of young offenders, and may also play a vital role in the breakdown of sentencing.
Another common misconception by the people of Canada is that youth crime is escalating out of control in our country. In fact youth crime is doing anything but escalating out of control. Corrado and Markwart (1992) remind us that ‘the total number of juveniles charged [from 1986-1989] remained stable over the three year period’ (p.166). Additionally in comparing changes from 1986 to 1992 on a per capita basis the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 3) discusses how youth crime in total increased by 2%; which in comparison adult crime increased by 10%. So it seems that these statements and statistics verify that the public’s conception of escalating youth crime is indeed a false one. In fact in the past several years, The Commissioner’s Report (1993: 14) supports findings that from 1986-1993 police statistics indicate that youth crime in general, has not increased, with the exception of violent crime. The Commissioner’s Report (1993) says that in 1993 64% percent of Canadians polled in an opinion poll expressed the belief that they felt the behavior of young people had ‘become worse’ in the past five years. However it has been well documented by research in the Commissioner’s Report (1993: 2) that the Canadian public believes crime rates are substantially higher than they actually are. Research has also established that the news media is the principal source of this public delusion.