10 Year Olds in Jail?

jdobbin · August 16, 2006

correct me if I am wrong, but if a person younger than 12 commits any kind of crime they are held to account and are often ordered to counselling etc, what they aren't ordered to is any period of incarceration or having these thoings held against them in the form of a youth record. What does lowering the YOA age down to 10 really do?

The police have to turn them back to their parents. I don't know know that they go before anyone.

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2006

Kids are not stupid. They see we're moving toward a consequence free society and well within their nature will push the boundaries. We need this. Remember how liberals fought to take all the power of the parent away? Well, we're seeing the conequences with the new generation of youth today. Its time we reign them back in.

So this is happening as a result of parents having less power ? The stories I've read of individual children caught up in the legal system invariably have neglectful parents at the centre of the problem - a cycle that continues down through the generations.

Of course, the liberal idea of creating government jobs in bad neighbourhoods is an altogether different sort of denial of reality. These children come from damaged environments that have no quick fix in our justice systems or economic systems.

The reactive solutions we've tried in the past only brought closure to the simplistic summary of the problems, not the problems themselves.

Charles Anthony · August 16, 2006

Should we do as in the US and install metal detectors?
That doesn't really address the problems that caused the phenomen to happen, though.

We could send kids home if they bring weapons to school. That would take us in the direction of addressing the causes.

haven't heard of any supporting infrastructure that is going with this so they would likely be locked up with older offenders.

There are group homes for troubled youth usually from broken homes. They are not sent to jail -- you know that.

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2006

We could send kids home if they bring weapons to school. That would take us in the direction of addressing the causes.

How so ? It seems you're just keeping them out of school, and sending the problem back to parents who might not have the resources to deal with it.

Hicksey · August 16, 2006

Kids are not stupid. They see we're moving toward a consequence free society and well within their nature will push the boundaries. We need this. Remember how liberals fought to take all the power of the parent away? Well, we're seeing the conequences with the new generation of youth today. Its time we reign them back in.

So this is happening as a result of parents having less power ? The stories I've read of individual children caught up in the legal system invariably have neglectful parents at the centre of the problem - a cycle that continues down through the generations.

Of course, the liberal idea of creating government jobs in bad neighbourhoods is an altogether different sort of denial of reality. These children come from damaged environments that have no quick fix in our justice systems or economic systems.

The reactive solutions we've tried in the past only brought closure to the simplistic summary of the problems, not the problems themselves.

Short of parenting for parents how can the government change this? What we need to do is stop giving these children the notion that all they willing get for the trouble they cause is a slap on the hand. Another social program isn't going to change a neglective parent. If they don't teach discipline and consequence, then it will have to be taught via the criminal justice system.

jdobbin · August 16, 2006

There are group homes for troubled youth usually from broken homes. They are not sent to jail -- you know that.

There are no group homes for offenders that young.

And young offenders go to youth detention centers not group homes because a group home has no security.

I was indicating that there is no infrastructure for youth as young as this plan indicates. They would be housed in places where there would be older offenders.

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2006

Short of parenting for parents how can the government change this? What we need to do is stop giving these children the notion that all they willing get for the trouble they cause is a slap on the hand. Another social program isn't going to change a neglective parent. If they don't teach discipline and consequence, then it will have to be taught via the criminal justice system.

That's really a non-fix, and admission that the problem can't be fixed.

Government implicitly recognizes that communities must be intact for its programs to work, yet they are unable to fix broken communities. Furthermore, they are chronically unable to recognize whether a community or even a family functions properly or not.

Social programs tend to be a blanket solution for every problem, specialized to the individual area - all of it expensive and useless at the same time. I think a more comprehensive approach is needed - one that comprises justice, social benefits and reinforcement of values.

What that solution is - no one knows until we ask those who are on the ground fighting these battles. And we can't start to ask until we give up the ghost of the existing system.

Shakeyhands · August 16, 2006

correct me if I am wrong, but if a person younger than 12 commits any kind of crime they are held to account and are often ordered to counselling etc, what they aren't ordered to is any period of incarceration or having these thoings held against them in the form of a youth record. What does lowering the YOA age down to 10 really do?

The police have to turn them back to their parents. I don't know know that they go before anyone.

Hmm... for most kids, thats punishment enough! My mother was some handy with a wooden spoon!

Rue · August 16, 2006

Well I think the point is a ten year old has to be accountable for his behaviour. Yes at 10, you can place a child in an institution emphasizing education and hard labour.

Ideally a 10 year old who commits a serious crime should be placed on a collective farm and when he is not in school under strict military rules be out doing physical labour.

Discipline, physical labour, education are the 3 elements of rehabilitation absolutely non existent in our system.

Now as for adults, and by that I mean anyone 16 or older, it is absolutely insane they are allowed to murder people and then be let out after 5 years on parole. It is insane we allow them to vote and sue the government for millions of dollars because they become drug addicts in jail, contract aids or contract lung ailments from second had smoke. Its pure b.s. and everyone knows it.

You murder someone, you get a minimum 25 years. After the 25th year, you wear a leg bracelette the rest of your life and you are required to work and pay a certain percentage to the dead person's family until you retire.

Instead of putting people in over crowded prisons they should be sent up North to build homes and roads for our natives and build roads for our military so it can establish its sovereignty up North.

Hard labour. No sitting on asses smoking and engaging in anal sex and doing drugs. Work. You don't want to work, fine, then you are left up North with a simple basic subsistence diet and left isolated. No right to vote. No right to t.v. No right to drugs in prisdon. No right to law suits.

No parole after 2 years for murder and rape.

Finally for the disperportionate number of aboriginals arrested and placed in jail for alcohol related offences, they should be relased to their community elders and treated by their communities-for the most part these are crimes of poverty and substance abuse related to that poverty. This should be differentiated from organized crime or violent crime.

Show me a punk criminal and I will show you a young man who had no male role model and grew up having no one tell them NO. Yes it is that simple. Discipline and restraint is what we are talking about. If you don't instill it in children is it a wonder they kill and rape?

Charles Anthony · August 16, 2006

Hard labour. No sitting on asses smoking and engaging in anal sex and doing drugs.

Can you please be more explicit?

Are you talking about consecutive or concurrent sentences?

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2006

Well I think the point is a ten year old has to be accountable for his behaviour. Yes at 10, you can place a child in an institution emphasizing education and hard labour.
Ideally a 10 year old who commits a serious crime should be placed on a collective farm and when he is not in school under strict military rules be out doing physical labour.

Discipline, physical labour, education are the 3 elements of rehabilitation absolutely non existent in our system.

Were you a proponent of 'Boot Camps' ? This is what I was referring to above - a feel-good solution that doesn't work.

And, again, this seems to be a priority not because of the actual problem but the perception of a problem.

jdobbin · August 16, 2006

Well I think the point is a ten year old has to be accountable for his behaviour. Yes at 10, you can place a child in an institution emphasizing education and hard labour.

Perhaps we can do what China does and blood type them and have them used for organ donations.

cybercoma · August 16, 2006

I think that 10 and 11 year olds are aware of their actions, and they needed to be treated as criminals.
That being said, jail isn't exactly the place for a youngin. If it were sentencing 10 and 11 year olds to programs that would help them get back into society, then ok. Just throwing them in the slammer to think about what they've done, it just doesn't work. Studies show that kids in jail are more likely to become career criminals, let's not start earlier.

That being said, at 10 or 11 or even right up to 18, I think the parents need to bare some responsibility and be charged with said crime themselves. It's ridiculous to assume that parents were completely independant of the actions of their 10 year old.

The problem is setting black and white rules to very grey situations. It's impossible to say, "10 and 11 year oldsl are aware of their actions." You can't generalize ALL 10 and 11 year olds; therefore, it's nearly impossible to make a blanket law for all 10 and 11 year olds.

The same can be said for the parenting of those children. Often times 10 and 11 year olds are unsupervised and will do things that they don't want their parents finding out about. You can't possibly expect parents to supervise these children at all times, constantly keeping an eye on them even when they're out playing with friends. So, once again, you can't make a law to cover all parents of 10 and 11 year olds because it's a very grey area.

The maturity and morality of children grows and changes with time and there isn't a specific set age where that changes. You can't say anything about ALL 10 and 11 year olds. You can't say anything about ALL of any group.

cybercoma · August 16, 2006

Hmm... for most kids, thats punishment enough! My mother was some handy with a wooden spoon!

"Some" handy?

Oh man...you've gotta be a maritimer!

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2006

The problem is setting black and white rules to very grey situations. It's impossible to say, "10 and 11 year oldsl are aware of their actions." You can't generalize ALL 10 and 11 year olds; therefore, it's nearly impossible to make a blanket law for all 10 and 11 year olds.

Cyber - I agree.

The problem with a justice 'system' is that it's designed to work correctly a certain percentage of the time. Since it's understood that it will make mistakes, the system is supposed to err on the side of caution. This infuriates many law-and-order types when it goes wrong, even for a single case.

If an early parole system can be practically 100% effective, that's not good enough if a single re-offender makes big headlines.

Wilber · August 17, 2006

The problem is setting black and white rules to very grey situations. It's impossible to say, "10 and 11 year oldsl are aware of their actions." You can't generalize ALL 10 and 11 year olds; therefore, it's nearly impossible to make a blanket law for all 10 and 11 year olds.

We already have a blanket law, we do nothing.

newbie · August 17, 2006

Treating 10-years old as adult criminal implies that they can assume full responsabiliy for their acts. By the same reasoning, age of consent for sexual behaviour should also be lowered to age 10.

And drink beer and drive and......

jdobbin · August 17, 2006

Letter to the Winnipeg Free Press August 16

Kids don't need jail

When young people fall victim to the criminal element before they reach 12 years of age, it represents a failure of the justice system and the social services that governments provide.

I commented on this problem recently in St. John's at a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, and it's unfortunate that my comments were misrepresented. I would like to correct the record by informing your readers of the following.

Young people who engage in criminal behaviour before the age of 12 need effective intervention and treatment to ensure that this pattern of behaviour is not continued. They do not need incarceration, nor have I suggested they do.

In some cases, young people have had extensive police and social service interaction before age 12. For these youth, the justice system has no mechanism to ensure that they get the treatment they need. To prevent them from falling through the cracks, we need to discuss whether the courts should have some legal recourse to intervene in a positive fashion. I am open to having the discussion about a treatment-based approach with all the stakeholders in the youth justice system. When it comes to young people of that age, we cannot afford to wait for them to turn 12 and then be dealt with by the courts.

As justice minister, I take responsibility for youth justice very seriously. This includes rehabilitation, holding young people accountable for their actions, protecting society, and preventing youth crime before it has a chance to take root. An effective youth criminal justice system takes all of these areas into consideration, because when one aspect fails, the public can lose faith in the entire system.

HON. VIC TOEWS

Minister of Justice

and Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ont.

Hicksey · August 17, 2006

Letter to the Winnipeg Free Press August 16
Kids don't need jail

When young people fall victim to the criminal element before they reach 12 years of age, it represents a failure of the justice system and the social services that governments provide.

I commented on this problem recently in St. John's at a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, and it's unfortunate that my comments were misrepresented. I would like to correct the record by informing your readers of the following.

Young people who engage in criminal behaviour before the age of 12 need effective intervention and treatment to ensure that this pattern of behaviour is not continued. They do not need incarceration, nor have I suggested they do.

In some cases, young people have had extensive police and social service interaction before age 12. For these youth, the justice system has no mechanism to ensure that they get the treatment they need. To prevent them from falling through the cracks, we need to discuss whether the courts should have some legal recourse to intervene in a positive fashion. I am open to having the discussion about a treatment-based approach with all the stakeholders in the youth justice system. When it comes to young people of that age, we cannot afford to wait for them to turn 12 and then be dealt with by the courts.

As justice minister, I take responsibility for youth justice very seriously. This includes rehabilitation, holding young people accountable for their actions, protecting society, and preventing youth crime before it has a chance to take root. An effective youth criminal justice system takes all of these areas into consideration, because when one aspect fails, the public can lose faith in the entire system.

HON. VIC TOEWS

Minister of Justice

and Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ont.

I thought this was covered in the original article upon which this thread was started.

Toews said he is considering changing the act not because he thinks 10 and 11-year-olds should be jailed, but because he thinks courts should be able to step in before a child has established a pattern of behaviour that could have harmful, long-term consequences.
"There doesn't necessarily have to be a charge, but there has to be some kind of a mechanism that you can bring the child into the context of the court," Toews said after giving a speech at the annual Canadian Bar Association conference in St. John's, N.L.

"I'm sometimes provided with anecdotes about people who've had a horrendous involvement with the police and other social agencies, but the courts have been unable to intervene until age 12," Toews said.

"I would like to see courts being able to intervene, especially in terms of treatment, at an earlier age."

Charles Anthony · August 17, 2006

There are no group homes for offenders that young.
And young offenders go to youth detention centers not group homes because a group home has no security.

I was indicating that there is no infrastructure for youth as young as this plan indicates. They would be housed in places where there would be older offenders.

So, what is the obstacle? Just lower the age at which young offenders are admitted and build more "youth detention centers". If they can not be sent home, what choice is there?

What you are saying is that "if the top of the kid's head does not reach this height, he can not get in and go on the ride" is it not?

I am saying: lower the bar and build more rides for smaller kids.

The infrastructure exists. We do not have to invent new ideas. All we have to do is deal with more capacity.

What that solution is - no one knows until we ask those who are on the ground fighting these battles. And we can't start to ask until we give up the ghost of the existing system.

What exactly would be scrapped?

I thought this was covered in the original article upon which this thread was started.

It certainly does not seem to add anything concrete.

I think most of this announcement by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is garbage: nothing more than political fluff only intended to appease and shut us up. What will it take to have a politician say that parents are slightly responsible for what their kids become?

Is it because there are so many silently negligent parents who honestly associate their own parenting with those of "broken homes" and thus are reluctant to attack parenting as an issue?

jdobbin · August 17, 2006

So, what is the obstacle? Just lower the age at which young offenders are admitted and build more "youth detention centers". If they can not be sent home, what choice is there?
What you are saying is that "if the top of the kid's head does not reach this height, he can not get in and go on the ride" is it not?

I am saying: lower the bar and build more rides for smaller kids.

The infrastructure exists. We do not have to invent new ideas. All we have to do is deal with more capacity.

Many provinces already are saying that prisons are at capacity and youth detention centers are filled. They are asking for federal assistance, especially if federal laws are responsible for no paroles and younger offenders in jail.

There is some confusion as to what the federal plan even is at the moment. See Vic Toews letter above.

The Justice Minister has said he *doesn't* want youth incarcerated. He wants them dealt by the courts but that doesn't really explain what would happen.

jdobbin · August 17, 2006

I thought this was covered in the original article upon which this thread was started.

Toews felt the need to re-state it yesterday in a letter to the editor because his remarks had left the impression with some people that his change in the law could still result in youth being incarcerated with older offenders.

It is obvious that the minister is going to have be very specfic in the legislation or that is exactly what is going to happen.

Shakeyhands · August 17, 2006

Hmm... for most kids, thats punishment enough! My mother was some handy with a wooden spoon!

"Some" handy?

Oh man...you've gotta be a maritimer!

Thats a maritimer thing? didn't know that. I was born close to the "Center of the Canadian Universe" but did marry a girl from Nfld.

Huge fan of boiled dinners too.

Michael Hardner · August 17, 2006

Charles:

What exactly would be scrapped?

I don't know that anything would be scrapped, exactly, but I suspect that the workers on the ground would suggest a solution that crosses departmental lines.

Hydraboss · August 17, 2006

I think that 10 and 11 year olds are aware of their actions, and they needed to be treated as criminals.

That being said, jail isn't exactly the place for a youngin. If it were sentencing 10 and 11 year olds to programs that would help them get back into society, then ok. Just throwing them in the slammer to think about what they've done, it just doesn't work. Studies show that kids in jail are more likely to become career criminals, let's not start earlier.

That being said, at 10 or 11 or even right up to 18, I think the parents need to bare some responsibility and be charged with said crime themselves. It's ridiculous to assume that parents were completely independant of the actions of their 10 year old.

The problem is setting black and white rules to very grey situations. It's impossible to say, "10 and 11 year oldsl are aware of their actions." You can't generalize ALL 10 and 11 year olds; therefore, it's nearly impossible to make a blanket law for all 10 and 11 year olds.

The same can be said for the parenting of those children. Often times 10 and 11 year olds are unsupervised and will do things that they don't want their parents finding out about. You can't possibly expect parents to supervise these children at all times, constantly keeping an eye on them even when they're out playing with friends. So, once again, you can't make a law to cover all parents of 10 and 11 year olds because it's a very grey area.

The maturity and morality of children grows and changes with time and there isn't a specific set age where that changes. You can't say anything about ALL 10 and 11 year olds. You can't say anything about ALL of any group.

Exactly why can parents not be held responsible? If a parent neglects to feed a child, can that parent rationaly state that "I can't feed the kid all the time"? I am responsible for my 8 and 9 year olds AT ALL TIMES.

And so should every other parent.