Youth justice

[myata]

There's a story in today's news that made me rethink possible novel approaches to youth justice (Yahoo: puck shot at $44,000).

On one hand, there appears to be more than desirable number of crimes committed by young offenders in a thoughtless, dangerous to innocent bystanders manner. On the other hand, Harper Tories simple and fast solution of sending more kids to more jails (and thus training more career criminals), doesn't exactly appeal to me (and as appears, to majority of Canadian public) as a working solution either.

So, where's the golden balance between the need to make kids realize that some actions simply can't and won't be tolerated by the society, and the expensive, inefficient policy of "send them all to jail"?

Well, may worth taking a creative look, now. Maybe the issue, per se is not in the toughness of the punishment, but the perceived efficiency of it? How's a 14-15 year old going to be deterred by a threat of a jail they know nothing, zero, nada about? Like that booga? Even more so, that nobody really wants to put them there, for an obvious reason that it'd greatly increase their chances of becoming career criminals, and costing us all, in the end run, more and much more.

So how about showing some creativity, and coming up with sanctions which are actually understood, and feared by potential offenders before they think of gettting involved in a crime?

First idea: community publicity. Yes in total contrast to the current provisions of the youth offenders act, the names of all offenders involved in serious crime are published, unless overruled by a judge.

Benefit: a clear and obvious deterrent for the offender (pre and post crime). An incentive ot improve, or get out of the community. Safer community.

Second idea: heavy escalating fines with expropriation of property and shared family responsibility.

E.g.: assault minimum 10 K. Assault with bodily harm or illegal possession of gun: 20 K. Second offense fines double. Can't pay, get stripped of property. Including family property, to the extent of shared responsibility (e.g. under 14 - 100%, 14-16 - 75%, 16-18 and up (if living together) - 50%). No expiration date, but an interest at least at the level of inflation.

Benefit: moneys are the very thing that forces many to get involved in gangs and crime. It's very simple to understand (ask any 12 year old; or even 10 year old).

Of course these are solutions for youth justice. Career criminals and organizers of crime still should get the max terms they're eligible for. This is one small part where I may agree with Harper that tougher sentences wouldn't hurt.

[robert_viera]

First idea: community publicity. Yes in total contrast to the current provisions of the youth offenders act, the names of all offenders involved in serious crime are published, unless overruled by a judge.

Benefit: a clear and obvious deterrent for the offender (pre and post crime). An incentive ot improve, or get out of the community. Safer community.

I would think that the young people who would be deterred by the thought of their name being published are probably the young people who are not likely to commit crimes in the first place.

Second idea: heavy escalating fines with expropriation of property and shared family responsibility.

E.g.: assault minimum 10 K. Assault with bodily harm or illegal possession of gun: 20 K. Second offense fines double. Can't pay, get stripped of property. Including family property, to the extent of shared responsibility (e.g. under 14 - 100%, 14-16 - 75%, 16-18 and up (if living together) - 50%). No expiration date, but an interest at least at the level of inflation.

Benefit: moneys are the very thing that forces many to get involved in gangs and crime. It's very simple to understand (ask any 12 year old; or even 10 year old).

This wouldn't be a deterrent to rich kids and would make poor kids even more desperate. What if a poor kid and his family couldn't afford to pay? Would you put them in jail? Jail for poor kids and fines for the children of rich people?

Edited February 12, 2009 by robert_viera

[Michael Hardner]

I think we need to create new communities where poverty isn't so concentrated, and create programs that focus on recreating a positive environment for kids who have no good role models. There are already charities and other organizations that do this, so let's fund them to do more of it.

[Wilber]

It's a tough question and there is no one size fits all answer but what we can't do is teach them there are no consequences for their actions. Inconvenience the crap out of the little buggers rich or poor. How about a month of picking up garbage on weekends, stuff like that. Take time they would be doing something they like and make them do something they don't, but provides a service to the people and society they have been trying to screw up.

[Alta4ever]

I actually agree with you ont the publishing of young offenders names myata. I'm not convinced on the loss of family property though. I think hard manual labour for community ervice for the less violent crime ie theft. Send them out to a pig barn and let them shovel sh-- pig pooo for a few weeks by hand.

[charter.rights]

Community Justice Forums

Less than 20% recidivism rate compared to 60% using mainstream methods. Participation by the victim provides closure. Non-stigmatizing shame tends to correct the behavior in the offender and his peers.

It hasn't caught on because it basically eliminates (prohibits) lawyers from participating and courts are reluctant to enter into them once the offender has been booked, although they are sometimes recommended for sentencing purposes as a restorative solution.

[Hydraboss]

Jail, period. Time may not be much for simple crime (ie. stealing cd's from a car), but it should be followed up with public service in a VERY visible location (picking up garbage around the kid's own high school starting at 3:30pm Mon-Fri for a start). Names must be published for all criminals, not just those over 18.

And while we're at it, bring in the three-strike rule and send some of these little "gangsta's" away for life.

[Progressive Tory]

Jail, period. Time may not be much for simple crime (ie. stealing cd's from a car), but it should be followed up with public service in a VERY visible location (picking up garbage around the kid's own high school starting at 3:30pm Mon-Fri for a start). Names must be published for all criminals, not just those over 18.

I've read all the comments and there are some very good suggestions. Publishing names may be fine, but could also just boost their street creds. I agree with the very public humiliation of doing jobs like cleaning garbage at or around the offender's school.

In Ontario the Mike Harris gov't started a 'Project Turnaround', which included boot camps for young offenders. We tried one, but it didn't work for a variety of reasons.

1. It was voluntary. They should be mandatory for repeat offenders.

2. They were private. They should not be for profit, which will put the emphasis on rehabilitation, since there is no monetary gain for prolonging their stay or encouraging their return.

3. The pilot camp was based on those in the U.S. - The residents were forced into 16 hour days, which was fine; but most of the 'training' was military style. Lots of marching and saluting the flag. It should instead focus on victim impact, life skills, job training, and education.

I also agree that the root cause of most crime is poverty, so social programs are imperative. I only support the boot camps for repeat young offenders who seem destined to become career criminals.

[myata]

I most certainly agree that better communities would provide less ground for crime. The problem is that we don't really know exactly how to create them. For example at one point in time we invested x-billion dollars into building huge social housing enclaves. I have two of those withing walking distance to my place, and both are permanent fixtures in the police reports. Good intentions not always translate into positive change. And as kids realize that power and fear can get one material benefits, crime will be with us for a long time.

Then again, I'm not interested in the "get tough" approach any more than "hugs and kisses". It's just another way of wasting resources without achieving anything. The real challenge is to find something that's working.

Anyways, this question was about the "stick" part. The current system of youth justice is designed by experts and approved by MP's often in their 60 and 70s. Do they have a clue, about what's going to an efficient, meaningful deterrent for a youth of 14-18? Is house arrest / probation a deterrent? Let's see. "If I do it again, and get caught at it, and won't twist out on yet another probation, I may get sent to jail." What does it mean, to be in a jail? What's the clear consequences of that for me? I've no idea. Such an obvious booga strategy. Everybody's supposed to fear it, even though we've never really seen it.

We have to distinguish between the moralistic and the rational approaches to justice. Moralistic is about retribution, redemption and saving the soul. Rational is about measurable reduction in the numbers and severity of crime. Which means 1) attempting to create conditions in which crime would be less welcome; and 2) sending a clear, inambiguous message to those who'd still think of getting involved with crime, that it won't be tolerated.

Speaking for the second part now, yes, carrot and stick strategy will also be with us until better days, the current penal system simply has very, very few sanctions that have real, clear, inambiguously prohibitive meaning to the young people. In my view, if we want to see real progress, in the realistic, rather than moralistic perspective, such instruments should be added. Not as a replacement for better communities, but as an addition to and strengthening of those.

P.S. let me clarify that we're talking about adding new sanctions that can be used in conjunction, or instead of existing ones. E.g. instead of a probation for assault, 10K fine. Instead of house arrest for illegal possession of guns or drug trafficking, 20K. Would that be a better deterrent in some cases (still to be determined by a judge)?

Edited February 13, 2009 by myata

[Progressive Tory]

Then again, I'm not interested in the "get tough" approach any more than "hugs and kisses". It's just another way of wasting resources without achieving anything. The real challenge is to find something that's working.

Did anyone here ever watch the Scared Straight Documentary!?

It was based on a program where 'at risk' youth spent time in a federal prison and the convicts revealed what really takes place behind the prison walls.

"The last sequel, hosted by Danny Glover, showed that the majority of the teens in the original program were, in fact, "scared straight" and went on to lead happy, productive lives."

Again it would only be for repeat offenders and aspiring career criminals. Does anyone think that's a good idea?

[85RZ500]

PT, once again we agree, amazing eh?

The scared straight thing is good and I like the boot camp idea too.

There's one south west of Mississauga called the Robert Land Acadamy. Check it out, the problem is the $40K p/a tag, it's only for the rich brats.

Poverty is part of the problem no doubt but the enrollment there might argue that point a touch.

We have to consider the home environment, what the school system has sunk to , the violence on TV, video games etc.

I believe it's been said here, it's a complex problem

Edited February 13, 2009 by 85RZ500

[myata]

Did anyone here ever watch the Scared Straight Documentary!?

It was based on a program where 'at risk' youth spent time in a federal prison and the convicts revealed what really takes place behind the prison walls.

Documentary is great (too bad I missed it) but doesn't the very fact that one need to take those kids to the prison, physically, for them to understand what the punishment actually means, speak volumes about absolute (in)efficiency of it, as a deterrent?

Again, I agree that fighting crime is a complex problem that requires persistent long term multi-prong strategies. Here I'd like to address only one part of it, namely, the role of the criminal justice system. In my view, the system of sanctions for youth offenders, as it exists now, is simply inadequate. Not too lenient, or too tough, but simply (to a large extent) beyond the point. Youth don't get it. It doesn't do much. Like cutting a piece of bread with a see-saw.

[Argus]

Community Justice Forums

Less than 20% recidivism rate compared to 60% using mainstream methods.

Yes, because thsoe headed there are pre-screened.

Then there are sweet lil tykes like this fellow.

Teen sentenced to life in bus slaying

[Michael Hardner]

There's no fast cure-all for youth crime.

Actually, looking at this thread again, it looks pretty ridiculous from step 1. The OP had a story about some kind of civil case where parents had to pay $44,000 for a careless accident, then the poster went off on a 'How can we fix the justice system' tangent.

What exactly is the problem with the system as it is today ?

Far too often, the media (and these boards) set unrealistic expectations as to the levels of youth violence in our society today. Of course one crime is too many, but one crime doesn't warrant blowing up the whole system and starting over. Every time.

[myata]

No, no there's no need to blow anything up. Only add more choices in the array of deterrents for crimes committed by youth. Those deterrents (like a 20K fine) that may actually stop somebody from carrying (or even getting) a gun, for fear to lose their cherished car. Unlike "jail" or "house arrest" these are concrete and very real notions that everybody, understands, starting from elementary school.

BTW it would cost nothing, unlike NDP spirited social housing developments that created long term headacke crime hotspots. Throwing money thoughtlessly never solved any problems.

The example in the OP demonstrated that shared family material responsibility is actually possible (I did not know that, or would even believe it possible). If in civil legal system, then maybe, it could be tried in the criminal system as well.

[Alta4ever]

There's no fast cure-all for youth crime.

Actually, looking at this thread again, it looks pretty ridiculous from step 1. The OP had a story about some kind of civil case where parents had to pay $44,000 for a careless accident, then the poster went off on a 'How can we fix the justice system' tangent.

What exactly is the problem with the system as it is today ?

Far too often, the media (and these boards) set unrealistic expectations as to the levels of youth violence in our society today. Of course one crime is too many, but one crime doesn't warrant blowing up the whole system and starting over. Every time.

It does when the young offender act is invovled.

[Army Guy]

There's no fast cure-all for youth crime.

Perhaps your right, but currently our laws actually give our youth a upper hand when it comes down to crime..they recieve little to no sentences, thier slate is wiped clean once they become adults. will all that change if we except the status quo....

But changing our laws, bring about relealistic punishments for youth offenders, a massive education program, in the schools teaching them right from wrong, showing them the consquences, and what it costs in dollars and distress to it's victims....the parents should also be targeted with this education, not only should they be held responsiable for thier childrens actions but they also must take part in thier re education....

I have 2 examples , a 14 year kid stole my niebours brand new jeep, from his garage, which was open and the keys left in the ignition....he went into is home to get some tools, and returned in less than 5 mins, and this kid stole his jeep, and took it for a joy ride, drove it to our local gravel pit and tourched it....His insurance company did not pay it all out for serveral reasons, the veh was left insured, and had the keys in the ignition....so he was left a hefty bill, his insurance also went up considerably....

The Kid was found and charged with theft, and was later released, my niebour is now trying to go thru small claims court to atleast have the uninsured portion payed out by the kids parnets, but it is not looking to good....

since then this kid and 3 others have been charged once again with theft, this time over 6 vehs where found in the pit burnt....

My brother house was broken into, just before X-mas, by 2 youths...they tore the place up pretty good, tore x-mas presents open took the good ones , stole little items like piggy banks, spare change, a laptop, a camera etc etc....the police took one finger print, from a basement window, that had been jimmeyed open....after serveral months of investagation RCMP know who did it, but have no proof....these same kids have bragged about how easy steeling is, and how they keep getting away with it....and yes my brother was lucky to only have a mess to clean up, and a few items stolen....he is a victim of crime...he has since spent more than 4000.00 improving his security, trying to regain his since of security, that was lost when 2 punks broke into his place....one day these kids are going to run into someone that takes security to another level..and end up in a hospital, or worse dead...

[charter.rights]

Yes, because thsoe headed there are pre-screened.

Then there are sweet lil tykes like this fellow.

Teen sentenced to life in bus slaying

Wrong. They are not pre-screen or preferred to the program. All they have to do is tell the police and the judge that they want to participate in a CJF. If the victim is willing then it is automatically arranged (qualifies under the alternative justice program).

Certainly it is not for every crime but it works well for most youth crime.

[Michael Hardner]

The responses here are basically all emotional. The only principle I can see is that young offenders should pay for their offenses just as adults do.

I'd like to hear from somebody familiar with the program, as I can see some value in keeping kids out of detention for the long term side effects.

[Progressive Tory]

PT, once again we agree, amazing eh?

Oh, no. What can that mean? Actually, we probably agree on a lot of things.

There are no easy answers. $40,000 per year does seem steep, but could also be looked on as an investment, if it means they don't become repeat offenders, but tax paying citizens.

I live in a prison town. Kingston Pen, Millhaven, Collins Bay, etc. I seem to remember a few years ago they tried something like 'Scared Straight' out at Millhaven. Can't remember too much about it and again it was only for potential career criminals.

I guess we can all agree that we need to look at the root problems of crime for the long term, but also need some form of short term solutions. I don't believe in throwing teenagers in with the general prison population, for obvious reasons; but do like a form of 'boot camp'.

[Oleg Bach]

What do you expect when we have a "family law" system that dispises the family and is to busy engineering fatherless homes and turning dads in to distant providers instead of protectors as they are really designed to be? Everyone complains about the system that fails to protect, instruct and guide our youth - so what's the big surprise - the strange system does not love or care or give a damn about youth - yet they are willing to inflict damage and alienate fathers from sons and daughters ---now we have this> garbage! You can not have it both ways - a dated feminist eccentric policy controled by greedy and powerful men from behind some curtain....and have boys grow up to be men when they see man hating females trained in liberality along with men that have no honour in positions of authority that are not men and will never attain manhood - so the kids all go astray and that grand takes a village bull crap is parroted by fools as a crazed boy plunges a knife into the heart of another to obtain an I-Pod - so as to listen to tunes about materialism - prostitution and murder...

[myata]

Agreed, any effective strategy will have to work in two ways, encourage kids to stay out of criminal zone and offer a strong deterrent to those who would try no matter what (and these will be with us for a long, long time, no need to get naive about that).

As it appears that the existing system fails on the second point. It does not give a clear strong signal that crime, especially violent forms of it, won't be tolerated, period. Instead it eases potential offenders in with meaningless sentences as house arrest / conditional sentencing / community service / probation, etc., then slams hard if / when something really bad happens. This is not the way to create a strong barrier to enrollment into crime. If those kids knew that the response will be real, strong, and it'll hit exactly where it hurts most, perhaps they would be less apt to experiment.

[Oleg Bach]

No - you have to have a FATHER say - Do this and don't do that - problem solved. BUT fathers escpecailly from the lower economic scale are not allowed to practice honourable instruction - because money talks and those dads are penalized if they speak when they have not paid for the privledge. Go on an on about state generated solutions - the state does not care...only the blood cares - BUT the state wants to be patriarch clothed in a matriarchal gown of black ---- and needs to deny the bioligical parents (there are no other kind) authorship --- just try to remove some unsavory youth from your house hold to protect your smaller children - and you get 911 ed -

My younger brother attempted to have authority in his house and was lied upon - after 5 years of proceedings he had no authorship in his house - He lost his house and everything else - now his family is reuinited and rent property - and are so far behind because of state interference they will never catch up - that state destroyed his life - because he attempted to guide and protect his kids. Family law and the Family Service act do NOT serve the family - they dismantle it - and I suspect it is policy - so shut up about all this stuff...How can young men and woman who are not wealthy expected to have diginity when dignity is forbidden...unless you pay - and they it is not always guarenteed.

[charter.rights]

No - you have to have a FATHER say - Do this and don't do that - problem solved. BUT fathers escpecailly from the lower economic scale are not allowed to practice honourable instruction - because money talks and those dads are penalized if they speak when they have not paid for the privledge. Go on an on about state generated solutions - the state does not care...only the blood cares - BUT the state wants to be patriarch clothed in a matriarchal gown of black ---- and needs to deny the bioligical parents (there are no other kind) authorship --- just try to remove some unsavory youth from your house hold to protect your smaller children - and you get 911 ed -

My younger brother attempted to have authority in his house and was lied upon - after 5 years of proceedings he had no authorship in his house - He lost his house and everything else - now his family is reuinited and rent property - and are so far behind because of state interference they will never catch up - that state destroyed his life - because he attempted to guide and protect his kids. Family law and the Family Service act do NOT serve the family - they dismantle it - and I suspect it is policy - so shut up about all this stuff...How can young men and woman who are not wealthy expected to have diginity when dignity is forbidden...unless you pay - and they it is not always guarenteed.

Actually is has always been the women who raise the young boys to become men. Traditionally the fathers were absent working to support their families and except for a time in 60s and 70s most men were emotionally unavailable and incapable of of teaching anything but their own selfishness.

[capricorn]

If those kids knew that the response will be real, strong, and it'll hit exactly where it hurts most, perhaps they would be less apt to experiment.

I totally agree with you myata. I can't help but think that if kids who are susceptible to crime or easily influenced had some early experience with facing the consequences of their actions, we would see a decrease in youth crime. It's this attitude among a minority of youth who think they can get away with it because of their age or that their transgressions are not all that serious. Sometimes it's just stupidity on their part and/or associating with the wrong crowd. This is a group I would like to see targeted in whatever steps are taken to prevent them from going too far before it is too late.

Here's an example. At age 16, my son committed an illegal act covered under the Criminal Code. Without going into detail, it was what is categorized as fraud which I myself uncovered. A small amount of money was involved but regardless it was cause for concern. I visited the police station and discussed the matter with the sergeant on duty. I was so frantic and incensed that he would do such a thing, I actually thought of pressing charges myself to teach him a lesson. As was explained to me, if I did he would have a criminal record which would follow him for life. I could not do this to him so another plan was hatched. We arranged a meeting where my son had to read aloud the appropriate part of the Criminal Code he had breached in the presence of the officer. In addition, the officer took him to the holding cell in the local police detachment and had him sit on the cold steel frame bed behind the bars to get a feel of it. I tell ya, that scared the hell out of him. To my relief, that was the end of that and he grew to become a responsible adult that I am very proud of.

I guess what I'm saying is that parents can play a part and tough love goes a long way. I know this approach cannot reach all youth at risk because of the different circumstances of each case. I wonder though whether there are enough programs in place to offer support and guidance for parents who struggle with kids who display criminal tendencies however innocent they may appear at first. The old cliche "nipping it in the bud" comes to mind.