Youth justice

myata · February 14, 2009

It's only my opinion, but it seems to me that the current system, with respect to youth misbehaviour, is always one step behind. Serious crime, like that IPod murder, rarely breaks out of the blue. It's starts with disruptive behaviour in school, to which we can only offer lecturing by principal, and suspension (probably long after the culprit stopped worrying about either). More serious acts, like property crime, or assaults, would be met with more lecturing, this time by the police, and in an unlikely case, a sanction like community service or probation. Almost like on every step of the ladder, the system, rather than sending a strong signal "Don't go here", is on the contrary, teasing the initiate, "Dare to do more?", "Maybe this time, the real stuff?".

What if it were to be the other way around? If a 14 year old, going on a pleasure ride in a stolen car ended up (complete with their family), with a 5 K fine, plus at least some of the damage; what if a 12 year old caught on their first unprovoked assault were handed, with a lecture, a 2 K fine, to be paid out of their pocket money, if necessary, topped up by the family? 2 K won't break any however poor family, but it'll send the right signal to the offender right when it's needed most; not to mention a nudge to the family to pay more attention to what the tyke is up to.

Maybe it won't stop all, but it would create that very much needed in between step between "virtual" sanctions like police lecture, probation, yada, and the hard reality of jail.

Michael Hardner · February 14, 2009

It's only my opinion, but it seems to me that the current system, with respect to youth misbehaviour, is always one step behind.

myata,

This whole thread is about your opinion.

Can you identify some statistics here to convince us that things are getting worse, or to highlight what needs attention.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Michael Hardner

myata · February 14, 2009

As a matter of fact, I do recall having heard (on a news analysis) about a raise in youth crime and violent crime in the latest crime stats. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Also, I'm not really of an opinion that action should be taken only when things "get worse". Crime levels in this country are already among the highest in the developed world, and outrageous crime often committed by underage offenders is very often on the air. Sometimes, action can and should be taken, to make things better.

Especially, a few more times than one'd expect to I hear "charged with breach of probation". Each such instance indicates that probation was not an appropriate sanction for the case.

Regarding what specifically needs attention, it was already explained several times (hope you took time to read and understand), but just in case, here's one more time, the problem is that the array of sanctions used in youth justice is inefficient and fails to offer sufficient deterrent to youth getting involved in serious, grave crime until it's too late. In particular, the vacuum that exists between the "virtual" sentences (police education, probation, community service, house arrest, etc) and the "hard" sentencing of jail is very disturbing. It means that somebody who's beyond the stage of verbal persuasion would only be stopped if / when they commit a serious crime. Introducing real sanctions that wouldn't send youth to jail, but at the same time, would signal cleary and strongly that behavior of that kind won't be tolerated, may be very useful in some (maybe, many) cases.

Michael Hardner · February 14, 2009

myata

As a matter of fact, I do recall having heard (on a news analysis) about a raise in youth crime and violent crime in the latest crime stats. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

No, you're right. You do recall that.

Also, I'm not really of an opinion that action should be taken only when things "get worse". Crime levels in this country are already among the highest in the developed world, and outrageous crime often committed by underage offenders is very often on the air. Sometimes, action can and should be taken, to make things better.

Cite please ? Please tell us what the acceptable amount is ?

Especially, a few more times than one'd expect to I hear "charged with breach of probation". Each such instance indicates that probation was not an appropriate sanction for the case.
Regarding what specifically needs attention, it was already explained several times (hope you took time to read and understand), but just in case, here's one more time, the problem is that the array of sanctions used in youth justice is inefficient and fails to offer sufficient deterrent to youth getting involved in serious, grave crime until it's too late. In particular, the vacuum that exists between the "virtual" sentences (police education, probation, community service, house arrest, etc) and the "hard" sentencing of jail is very disturbing. It means that somebody who's beyond the stage of verbal persuasion would only be stopped if / when they commit a serious crime. Introducing real sanctions that wouldn't send youth to jail, but at the same time, would signal cleary and strongly that behavior of that kind won't be tolerated, may be very useful in some (maybe, many) cases.

It seems that a lot of this is what we hear. Maybe we should start with a source that has published statistics on youth crimes.

ANyone ?

Wilber · February 14, 2009

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.

When I was in Alaska, if you were caught fishing or hunting out of season, in the wrong place, or were caught with the wrong species, size or sex of game, you lost your weapons, tackle and what ever else you had with you plus the vehicle you were using at the time. It was a deterrent that worked rather well. Too bad we can't do the same to people who carry guns that are designed for no other purpose than to shoot other people. We are really stupid, there is just no other reason for it.

myata · February 15, 2009

No, you're right. You do recall that.

The Star: StatsCan reports rise in violent youth crime

Now what?

Cite please ? Please tell us what the acceptable amount is ?

I don't need a cite every time I go to the bathroom. Enough is that it's a few too many for what I consider acceptable. A colleague of mine recently went through a home invasion. A bunch of kids broke into their home's garage, then went up to the kitchen, and helped themselves to the fridge, while frightened family, with a small child, waited upstairs, afraid even to call the police. Which later dismissed the incident as "kids", not sure what (if anything) followed as a sanction. Till he moved out to another city, he didn't mention any movement on the case.

If this isn't a dare, to every one in the bunch to do more exciting things, next time around, I don't know what is? Each one should have gotten a heavy fine (according to the age and degree of responsibility) and faced the music from the family, if their car or washing machine or XBOX had to be sold to pay for the little adventure. Good for the kid, who suddenly realizes that actions have consequences; good for the family who had a chance to get it that somebody will be responsible for what their offspring is doing their leisure time; good for the victims, who may at least get some compensation for their material losses, not to mention terrifying experiences; and good for the rest of community, that can be a bit more confident that at least some of those involved wouldn't attempt another fun adventure in the near future.

Michael Hardner · February 15, 2009

myata,

Ok, so we should change the system because your friend was a victim ?

That is a good article.

The overall rate of youth crime was down six per cent compared to a decade earlier and 25 per cent since the peak year of 1991. The rate climbed only three per cent between 2005 and 2006.

and

Greg DelBigio of the Canadian Bar Association said it's hard to get a good sense of the numbers and whether or not tougher legislation is the answer. He said there must be more information about the variables that may have contributed to the rise in violent crime, like youth population growth.
"If one presumes that increase in numbers are caused or explained through factors which will be effectively addressed through tough on crime measures then there may be support for tough on crime," he said.

"However, one should not change the law on presumptions and guesswork."

Overall, the numbers are not alarming. However, I can accept that we would like to see much lower numbers, and even that Stephen Harper would be the best leader to tackle this problem.

That being said, an old-fashioned law-and-order approach has been tried in the past in various aspects and it doesn't seem to have worked, except that it helped get the people who proposed it elected.

eyeball · February 15, 2009

That being said, an old-fashioned law-and-order approach has been tried in the past in various aspects and it doesn't seem to have worked, except that it helped get the people who proposed it elected.

Its also kept people from thinking about preventing crime by doing things such as you suggested like building better communities.

Far tighter controls on the sale of alcohol perhaps even its prohibition would also make a huge difference.

In fact, some estimates suggest that half the Canadian prison population is plagued by prenatal alcohol exposure (Luke, 2004, 6).
Source...see pg. 13

Oleg Bach · February 15, 2009

Its also kept people from thinking about preventing crime by doing things such as you suggested like building better communities.
Far tighter controls on the sale of alcohol perhaps even its prohibition would also make a huge difference.

The black way ward kid that plunges a knife into the heart of a victim in order to steal his I-Pod --- is not influence by alcohol - They are not interested in the stuff -- they are pot smokers with very clouded judgement. Getting drunk does not creat mayhem - If the youth is properly trained and mentored by a good father and mother - all the booze in the world will not generate crimminal behavour. Those that are crimminal are just that - the genetic and enviornmental spawns of parental crimminals...For instance they say - that the mental make up of a cop is very similar to the makeup of a crook...I agree with that - My wifes grand father and father were law enforcement....They behaved as crimminals as did my wife - by quietly so with a respectable vaneer to hide who they really were...Good and intelligent parents generate the same in their offspring.

Keepitsimple · February 16, 2009

If we can agree that someone who commits first degree murder at the age of 14, 15, 16 or 16 deserves more than 2 or 3 years in jail, then you can understand where the Conservatives are coming from - something has to be done. The maximum youth sentence for pre-mediated first degree murder is 10 years.....but with our silly parole system, the perpetrator is likely out on the street in 3 years. For second degree murder, the maximum sentence is 7 years - likely out on the street in 2 years......and remember, these are maximums.......and their records are wiped clean after 5 years if they are not caught doing another crime. Given that those are the most serious violent crimes, I can't even begin to imagine what the sentence might be for a violent sexual assault. These are crimes that are simply unacceptable in our society. Now lets take a look at exactly what the Conservatives have been proposing.....but keep in mind that the actual length of the sentences has not yet been proposed (the reference to a potential "Life Sentence" is farcical due to parole elegibility). Nor has it been determined where they will serve their sentence - it most likely will not be in the mainstream prisons. We cannot wring our hands and do nothing...what is in place now is simply wrong-headed.

Published: Monday, September 22, 2008
OTTAWA - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised Monday to scrap Canada's young offenders law and replace it with a tougher version under which youth who commit serious violent crimes will no longer be able to keep their names out of the news. The new law would impose automatic, stiffer sentences for people 14 years of age or over who are convicted of serious violent crimes, such as murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault. For example, a youth convicted of first- or second-degree murder could now face a life sentence. Currently, youths found guilty of first- and second-degree murder face maximum sentences of 10 years and seven years. 'We need to, and will, restore balance to the young offenders law,' Harper said in a speech outlining the first major plank of his Conservative party's tough-on-crime platform. Upon conviction, the names of youth who commit serious violent crimes would be made public.

Link: http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/...e8-17a6ff282cbb

Edited February 16, 2009 by Keepitsimple

Oleg Bach · February 16, 2009

The law does not have to be tougher it just has to be the LAW. If a kid is obviously a hooligan then he must be trounced soundly by the system - If he is just some silly kid that made a mistake then you take the most practial application of the law and seek a remedy. The purpose of correctional courts and instutions was to correct...liberality does not say to the kid "you are wrong" - they don't want to harm his self esteem... The difficulty with what has happened to the young offenders act is that it is sound but has been preverted by clever lawyer and social workers. As I said -- you do not treat all young offenders the same or with the same kit gloves...each kid is different....If one is a hooligan - you correct him with sound punitive measures...If the kid is a fool you correct him in a more civil fashion. As the act now stands - and has been interpreted with endless convolutions ---is that one size fits all - it does not!

myata · February 16, 2009

Overall, the numbers are not alarming. However, I can accept that we would like to see much lower numbers, and even that Stephen Harper would be the best leader to tackle this problem.

Sure, moving goalposts and selective reading may sound like a fun strategy - when you have nothing else to show for it.

Let's see what we have:

1. The facts: homicides up 3%, at a record high; violent crime 30% up, from 91

2. Anecdotal cases, where outrageous crime was committed by offenders on probation/house arrest, etc.

3. Logical absurdity of having an array of "virtual" punishments on one side, and hard jail on the other, but nothing in between - nothing real that can actually convey to somebody not inclined to take in plain words, that "no, this is the wrong way to go".

And on the other side? Some pundit opinion? Eternal belief that all problems can be solved by hugging and kissing, and throwing (somebody else's) money at them? No? Your turn, then.

Progressive Tory · February 16, 2009

myata,
Overall, the numbers are not alarming. However, I can accept that we would like to see much lower numbers, and even that Stephen Harper would be the best leader to tackle this problem.

The trouble with Harper's tough on crime policies, is that it appears to be paving the way for private prisons. There are some things that should not be for profit, and the prison system is one of them. Rehabilitation or prevention of repeat offending, is not top of the list. Maintaining prison population and prospective profit is. I learned after living under Mike Harris to always read between the lines.

Back door prison privatization? (Scroll down)

"While these negotiations continue, a federal review of prisons is being carried out by Rob Sampson, who, as a Mike Harris Ontario cabinet minister, was the chief architect of the province's short-lived experiment with private prisons and "boot camps." Sampson served under Harris as privatization and then as correctional services minister.

He played a key role in establishing a private prison experiment. After five years of management by a Utah-based American correctional corporation, the Ontario "superjail" at Penetanguishene was returned to public sector management by the McGuinty Liberals, citing high operating costs and poor performance."

I did and still do like the concept of 'boot camps', but not American style, and definitely NOT PRIVATE!.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Progressive Tory

Michael Hardner · February 16, 2009

myata,

And on the other side? Some pundit opinion? Eternal belief that all problems can be solved by hugging and kissing, and throwing (somebody else's) money at them? No? Your turn, then.

As I said, I accept that something needs to be done, but it has to be effective. The last time we revisited this issue, with the Harris Government's 'boot camps', it was done as a cynical political campaign talking-point and completely botched.

Oleg Bach · February 16, 2009

myata,
As I said, I accept that something needs to be done, but it has to be effective. The last time we revisited this issue, with the Harris Government's 'boot camps', it was done as a cynical political campaign talking-point and completely botched.

Spoil the family - spoil the child. What do we expect with the re-engineering of the traditional family? After 10 thousand years of tradition being whipped out in one half of a generation...to form some new model that instantly proves to be defective?

myata · February 17, 2009

As I said, I accept that something needs to be done, but it has to be effective. The last time we revisited this issue, with the Harris Government's 'boot camps', it was done as a cynical political campaign talking-point and completely botched.

I doubt anybody could claim to have the complete solution, or maybe that one even exists (given complexity of human nature). We can only try to make sense of things, and home to improve them over time. Which in this topic could mean having a full array of measures to deal with many possible situations, rather than abstractions like "poor neglected child" or "hardened young criminal". Human situations cover the entire range of possibilities, and so should the array of sanctions, available to the judge. For a first time offender, a warning or probation may do the job. For someone getting used to unwanted behaviour, or showing persistent misunderstanding of the ways society works (by e.g. carrying an illegal weapon around) - heavy fine, and/or name in the print; and to a serious crime - appropriate jail term.

I wouldn't be placing much hope on Harper's policies, because they either fail to understand, or choose to not mention, that a meaningful, efficient action against crime should start much earlier than a serious crime is committed.

Michael Hardner · February 17, 2009

myata,

I doubt anybody could claim to have the complete solution, or maybe that one even exists (given complexity of human nature). We can only try to make sense of things, and home to improve them over time. Which in this topic could mean having a full array of measures to deal with many possible situations, rather than abstractions like "poor neglected child" or "hardened young criminal". Human situations cover the entire range of possibilities, and so should the array of sanctions, available to the judge. For a first time offender, a warning or probation may do the job. For someone getting used to unwanted behaviour, or showing persistent misunderstanding of the ways society works (by e.g. carrying an illegal weapon around) - heavy fine, and/or name in the print; and to a serious crime - appropriate jail term.

Well said. I'd like to think that a large part of the problem is perception, and that that could be addressed by discussing these issues but that might be a pipe dream.

Oleg Bach · February 18, 2009

myata,
Well said. I'd like to think that a large part of the problem is perception, and that that could be addressed by discussing these issues but that might be a pipe dream.

The doctrines of old Christian belief may have been a pipe dream but they kept things in check. The price of secularizaton for the hope of breeding more public compliance to the all mighty government seems to be a high price to pay - a lawless tribe of youth who you have taught to worship MONEY and not goodness...who governement has instructed and supported the mothers to disgard those dominant lazy fathers - and government who partake in the animal husbandry of Jamacian mothers with the promise of cheap houseing and a washer and dryer ----looks good on you fools - You allowed a monster to be born and now you worry about how to contain the young youthful and vigorous crimminal...Good luck.. :lol:

myata · February 18, 2009

The problem with phylosophical generalizations is that they offer few ideas for practical solutions - and even fewer working ones. Other when going back in time to the good old times. If it was possible - and anybody really wanted to.

Progressive Tory · February 18, 2009

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.

On these boards, we're not really looking for a one size fits all solution, but I've read some very good suggestions.

I watched Crime Stories this morning and it covered a Calgary murder case that fits with the topic. I think the victim was Evan Chu (?) They couldn't give the names of his assailants because they were only 15 at the time of the murder.

These three teens stole $ 6,000 from the man by forging cheques and when confronted they took him out to a deserted road and stabbed him repeatedly, dumping his body behind the rock face. They bragged to their friends and even took some of them out to show off their handy work. They drove his car around after they killed him and used his credit cards to buy Play Stations, etc.

They were charged with first degree murder, under the Young Offenders Act. The ring leader got ten years with the possibility of parole after only five, the next guy got 5 years and the third, who only drove the car, got two years probation.

This is wrong. If it was manslaughter or self defense, it would be a different matter. But they laughed in court and taunted the victim's family. Absolutely no remorse.

The guy whose knife cut through the man's aorta could be out of jail at age 20, with his life still ahead of him. This is justice?

Argus · February 19, 2009

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 -

Not to mention a large proportion of these punks don't have any known father, or if he is known he's long gone.

Argus · February 19, 2009

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.

Wow, sexist a little bit? Maybe?

Mothers raised the children and fathers worked outside the home. That was certainly true. It is certainly not true to suggest fathers were uninvolved with their children, and were not the high court of justice and discipline in the home for children, particularyl older ones, who merited discipline. One of the problems of today's society is many fathers are absent or unknown, particularly in the Black community.

Argus · February 19, 2009

It's only my opinion, but it seems to me that the current system, with respect to youth misbehaviour, is always one step behind. Serious crime, like that IPod murder, rarely breaks out of the blue. It's starts with disruptive behaviour in school, to which we can only offer lecturing by principal, and suspension (probably long after the culprit stopped worrying about either).

Schools are a major part of the problem. Youths face little or no discipline in schools, no matter what they do, unless there is an actual police matter, and even that would be handled with a shrug. The days of rigid behaviour codes in school punished by a cane to the bottom are long gone. I'm not saying they ought to return, either. I am saying that young people did learn that misbehaviour would be punished, and did learn expected codes of conduct. I think the schools have swung far too far away from this code to the point teenagers, in particular, are practically out of control in some schools. And the behaviour they learn there is carried out onto the street and then goes even further downhill.

The justice system treats them with "kid clothes" no matter what they do, until it is something like stabbing someone to death for his Ipod. Then it goes "Oh my! I'm shocked you would think you could to that!"

The foundation of a youth justice act ought to be justice. If a youth causes damage, that youth should be required to make up that damage. Cause thousands of dollars in damage to someone's house or car - for fun. Fine, then you have to work at something: farming or furniture making or envelope stuffing or whatever, until you've paid off your debt. No car, no Ipod, no cell phone, no personal posessions beyond clothing, until they make up for the damage caused.

Use violence against someone? Prison. every time. Immediately. No bail, no probation. A quick trial the same day or week, then off to jail. Instantly. And no parole except for those who really have come to terms with the error of their ways, who have done their level best to alter their behaviour patterns.

And the same for their adult counterparts.

The way to combat violent crime is to make it absolutely clear to all involved that violence will not be tolerated - at all - ever.

myata · February 19, 2009

This one time I'll agree with Argus that material responsibility simply cries to be there, for those kids who stopped taking in words, but haven't yet committed anything major. Like, from age of about 12. Tell me that 12 year old kid won't understand that breaking that window cost $$. Make their family pay if they can't. Perhaps it'll encourage family to talk to the kid, rather than teacher or police.

It's the simplest, clearest and most efficient way to show them that responsibility for acts really exists. In the system that exists now, they'd only find that out if they've done something really outrageous (and were caught at that).

Argus · February 22, 2009

This ia a virtual case study of what happens when you simply slap someone on the back of the wrist and send them out int othe streets again without acknowledging how dangerous he has become, without intervening before he kills someone. It's an indictment of how we deal with career criminals, and our inability to adjust our responses to them in light of their clearly deteriorating respect for others, our inability to lock them away before they kill.

Ratray's life of crime