SOC1000 - Lecture 5 - Youth Crime & Justice

Key factors in defining youth include:

1. Age: Typically ranges from 12 to 18 years.
2. Developmental Stage: Youth are often in a transitional phase of physical, emotional, and social development.
3. Social Context: Influences from family, peers, and community can shape youth behavior.
4. Legal Definitions: Varies by jurisdiction, impacting how youth are treated in the justice system.

The main approaches to justice for young offenders include:

1. Restorative Justice: Focuses on repairing harm and involving victims, offenders, and the community.
2. Diversion Programs: Aims to redirect youth away from formal judicial proceedings.
3. Rehabilitation: Emphasizes treatment and support to prevent reoffending.
4. Punitive Measures: Involves consequences for criminal behavior, though less common for youth compared to adults.

The distinction between 'youth' and 'adult' is understood as a social construction, where age-related laws, rules, and expectations can sometimes feel arbitrary.

Individuals under 12 years old have no criminal responsibility according to the Criminal Code of Canada and are subject to compulsory schooling.

Youth aged 12-17 years old have criminal responsibility under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and are also subject to compulsory schooling.

Individuals aged 15-18 years old can:

1. Leave school (at 18)
2. Get a driver's license (at 16)
3. Work full-time
4. Consent to sex
5. Consent to medical and dental treatment
6. Join the military (at 16/17 without parental consent)

Individuals aged 18/19 years old can:

1. Drink alcohol
2. Gamble
3. Buy cigarettes
4. Live independently
5. Marry
6. Vote
7. Watch R-rated movies

The distinction between 'youth' and 'adult' is understood as a social construction that varies based on socio-historical context. This means that the definitions and perceptions of youth can change over time and across different cultures.

The concept of 'youth' is seen as a protected life stage that exists before adulthood, characterized by different capabilities and responsibilities. This modern understanding challenges traditional views of maturity and adulthood.

The notion of 'emerging adulthood' suggests that the transition to adulthood is not strictly defined by legal age but involves a complex interplay of maturity and responsibilities, questioning when someone is considered 'mature enough' to be an adult.

The question of maturity is crucial for understanding youth crime and justice as it relates to the age of criminal responsibility and societal perceptions of when an individual should be held accountable for their actions.

The age-crime curve indicates that youth crime rates peak around age 18, with a rate of approximately 6,200 per 100,000 population, and then gradually decrease as age increases, approaching near zero by age 89.

Most crimes committed by young people happen in private residences, including underage drinking, substance use, and fighting.

Common non-violent crimes committed by youth in commercial establishments include shoplifting, theft, and possession of stolen goods.

The peak time for youth crime is typically between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM after school.

School is a location that is more likely to involve youthful violence and drug offenses.

There are no inherently 'youthful' crimes; the nature of the crime is not exclusive to youth.

Property crimes show a general downward trend over the years, indicating a decrease in these offenses among youth.

Violent crime rates are lower and relatively stable compared to property crime rates, which are consistently the highest but trending downwards.

Youth violence receives the most media attention, reflecting societal concerns over increases in violent crime among Canadian youth, often leading to fear of crime and moral panics.

Most criminological theories were developed to explain patterns of youth offending, primarily focusing on working-class boys. Young people were seen as the most visible and measurable population for studying crime.

The field of criminology grew out of attempts to understand youth crime, deviance, and the dynamics of youth gangs.

Classical criminological theories proposed various explanations for youth crime, focusing on factors such as rational choice, deterrence, and the influence of social environment on behavior.

Social learning theories focus on how criminal or deviant behavior is learned from others, particularly through interactions with peers.

Differential Association Theory suggests that delinquency results from associating more with delinquent peers than with law-abiding peers, leading to the learning of criminal knowledge and values.

Youth learn criminal behavior through interactions with delinquent peers, acquiring knowledge, values, tactics, and rationalizations that favor violating the law.

Criminality varies based on what individuals learn and from whom they learn it, particularly the 'definitions' that favor or prohibit violating the law.

Differential Reinforcement Theory posits that deviant or conventional behaviors are reinforced through interactions with others. Criminal behaviors are learned as individuals discover how to gain rewards and avoid punishment, leading to their persistence based on past reinforcement and anticipated future consequences.

The Techniques of Neutralization include:

1. Deny the victim: Justifying actions by claiming the victim deserved it.
2. Deny responsibility: Asserting that the act was beyond one's control.
3. Deny injury: Arguing that the act did not cause significant harm.
4. Appeal to higher loyalties: Prioritizing group loyalties over societal rules.
5. Condemn the condemners: Claiming that societal rules are hypocritical or corrupt.

The man claims he didn't mean to take the comic, stating he forgot it was in his pocket. He also argues that everyone steals when they are kids, suggests that police are corrupt, and insists that his actions didn't hurt anyone since it's a big store with insurance.

Social control theories argue that criminal tendencies are natural and will be acted upon if not directly controlled. Therefore, it is essential to emphasize factors that promote conformity.

Social Bond Theory, proposed by Hirschi in 1969, explains that conformity is influenced by strong bonds to conventional society.

Strong social bonds lower the likelihood of engaging in crime because individuals are concerned with harming their prosocial relationships.

Weak social bonds reduce one's personal stake in conformity, making it more likely for individuals to engage in criminal behavior.

The General Theory of Crime posits that crime is caused by low self-control and the inability to resist available criminal opportunities. This low self-control is characterized by impulsiveness and a lack of focus on long-term desires, which increases the likelihood of youth engaging in criminal activities and other risky behaviors such as substance abuse and sexual promiscuity. It is suggested that low self-control stems from inadequate child-rearing by parents and is considered a stable trait after adolescence, influencing offending behavior based on the availability of criminal opportunities.

Subcultural theories argue that youth groups challenge the status quo by adopting oppositional cultural values, norms, and beliefs.

'Status frustration' refers to the experience of lower-class boys who feel a status disadvantage in middle-class schools, leading to frustration when they cannot meet the expectations of the 'middle-class measuring rod'.

Frustrated boys create a delinquent subculture that rejects middle-class norms and values, replacing them with oppositional norms and values that allow them to gain status.

The delinquent subculture provides new criteria for boys to excel at, enabling them to achieve status that is otherwise inaccessible in the middle-class world.

Delinquency is seen as an oppositional means of achieving status for those who feel marginalized in the middle-class environment.

The 'Dramatization of Evil' refers to the idea that contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) can amplify common acts of delinquency, labeling youths as trouble-makers. This process alters how others perceive the individual, leading to social rejection, and affects the individual's self-identity, potentially internalizing a criminal identity that exacerbates future criminal decision-making.

Labeling by the CJS can lead to social rejection and the internalization of a criminal identity. This change in self-perception can prompt youths to reconsider their identity, potentially leading them to embrace the label of 'criminal' and engage in further deviant behavior.

Dramatizing delinquent behavior can jumpstart a criminal career by reinforcing negative labels and identities. It is crucial to avoid dramatization to prevent the escalation of criminal behavior and to support positive self-identities among youths.

The perceptions have evolved from viewing young people as 'misguided children' to 'juvenile delinquents' and now to 'criminal youth'.

Factors include changing societal attitudes towards youth, the recognition of developmental differences between youth and adults, and the need for rehabilitation rather than punishment.

The major legislations include:

Youth were treated similarly to adults, often referred to as 'little adults' or 'little criminals'. They faced legal consequences and received punishments akin to those of adults, although there was some evidence of leniency.

• Under age 7: Cannot be convicted.
• Age 7-14: Doli incapax, presumption of an inability to do harm.
• Convicted young offenders were often mixed with adult offenders in carceral settings.

Doli incapax refers to the legal presumption that children aged 7 to 14 are incapable of committing a crime due to an inability to understand the consequences of their actions. This presumption provided some protection for youth in the legal system before the 1800s.

The quote by Aries suggests that once children reached the age of five or seven, they were viewed as part of the adult world, losing their status as innocent beings and being subjected to adult legal standards and consequences.

The concept of 'childhood' emerged in Western Europe in the 17th century.

The need to prepare youth for the harshness of the adult world prompted the idea of a special justice system for young people.

The emergence of the concept of childhood influenced perceptions of youth justice in Canada by highlighting the need for a separate justice system for young people, which evolved over time to address their unique needs and circumstances.

The primary focus was on upholding the morality of young people, particularly concerns from the urban middle-class directed toward working-class and immigrant youth.

The child welfare reform movement implicated poor parenting in the moral shortcomings of 'neglected' youth, suggesting that if parents could not reform their children, the state should intervene to 'save' them.

The critique was that the real motive behind state intervention was to control lower-class youth who threatened white, middle-class, Protestant values, rather than purely to save misguided children.

The Act aimed to separate young offenders from adults and place them in reformatory prisons designed to correct their moral failings.

They sought to reverse the negative effects of poor home environments, operating under the belief that misguided children are a product of their environment.

It suggests that longer sentences were viewed as necessary for true reform, even if they seemed harsh, indicating a belief in the importance of rehabilitation over punishment.

The primary focus was on rehabilitation through physical labour.

The main objective was to promote self-control and work training.

The four main approaches to youth justice are:

1. Welfare Model
2. Justice Model
3. Crime Control Model
4. Restorative Justice

The timeline highlights the evolution of youth justice legislation in Canada, marking key acts:

• Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908)
• Young Offenders Act (1984)
• Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002)

The primary aim of the Juvenile Delinquency Act (1908) was to reform 'juvenile delinquents' through a welfare-based model that emphasized formalized state paternalism, following the parens patriae doctrine.

'Status offenses' are acts that are considered illegal only because of the age of the individual, often associated with immorality and vices. Examples include alcohol consumption, running away from home, truancy, and use of profanity.

The Juvenile Delinquency Act (1908) introduced a formal legal distinction between young offenders and adult offenders, establishing a separate legal framework for dealing with youth.

The establishment of the first juvenile court in Winnipeg in 1908 marked a significant development in the legal treatment of young offenders, providing a specialized system to address juvenile delinquency.

Women were preferred as probation officers under the Juvenile Delinquency Act (1908) because they were seen as surrogate mothers, aligning with the welfare-based model of reform for juvenile delinquents.

• Reliance on indeterminate sentences: This approach lacks clear guidelines for the duration of sentences.
• Parental responsibility: Parents could be held accountable for their child's crimes, including financial penalties.
• Inclusion of status offenses: The act included behaviors that are not criminal for adults, raising concerns about fairness.
• Skepticism about reformation: There were doubts regarding the effectiveness of the act in reforming juvenile offenders.

The Young Offenders Act (1984) focuses on responsibility, accountability, and balancing legal rights against the protection of society. It aims to weigh justice principles against crime-control principles.

Under the Young Offenders Act (1984), young people are viewed as no longer just misguided victims; they must also assume responsibility for their behavior, albeit in a more limited capacity than adults.

Young people under the Young Offenders Act (1984) have more legal rights, including:

1. Right to legal representation
2. Right to be informed of their rights

The Young Offenders Act (1984) requires that parents be notified of their child's arrest and court proceedings, and they are allowed to make statements in court.

The Young Offenders Act (1984) focused on responsibility, accountability, and balancing legal rights against the protection of society.

The Young Offenders Act (1984) removed status offences and indeterminate sentencing, replacing them with fixed sentences.

'Diversion' refers to redirecting offenders to non-correctional interventions instead of formal court processing. It is part of a radical non-intervention strategy aimed at minimizing negative reactions from the criminal justice system, especially for first-time offenders.

The Young Offenders Act (1984) provided detailed regulation of every stage of the youth justice process, including police, courts, custody, and community.

Growing public and political criticism of the Young Offenders Act (YOA) prompted the development of the YCJA.

The YCJA incorporates both crime-control models and restorative justice models.

The key principles include:

1. Protection of the Public
2. Accountability
3. Proportionality
4. Rehabilitation and Reintegration
5. Meaningful Consequences
6. Special Considerations

These principles emphasize a balanced approach to youth justice.

The YCJA preamble emphasizes that the youth criminal justice system should:

• Command respect
• Take into account the interests of victims
• Foster responsibility
• Ensure accountability through meaningful consequences
• Provide effective rehabilitation and reintegration
• Reserve serious interventions for serious crimes
• Reduce over-reliance on incarceration for non-violent young persons

The number of youth charged with crimes shows a general downward trend from approximately 4,700 in 2001 to about 1,200 in 2022, with some fluctuations along the way.

The number of youth not charged initially increased from 3,500 in 2001 to a peak of about 4,600 around 2004-2005, followed by a downward trend to approximately 1,600 in 2022.

In 2002, the lines representing youth charged and youth not charged intersected, indicating that the number of youth not charged surpassed the number of youth charged for the first time.

Around 2020, the lines representing youth charged and youth not charged intersected again, with the number of youth charged surpassing the number of youth not charged at that point.

The 2012 amendment emphasized accountability, incorporating specific deterrence and denunciation in sentencing. The 2019 amendment encouraged alternatives to formal criminal charges unless there is a risk to public safety or a history of repeat violations.

Today's YCJA represents a political compromise through its amendments, which create a bifurcated system aimed at both reforming and punishing young offenders. This cyclical pattern indicates a balance between rehabilitative efforts and punitive measures.

Critics of the YCJA point to a continued lack of rehabilitative resources, insufficient mental health services, and poor conditions in carceral institutions as significant issues that undermine the effectiveness of the legislation.

Restorative justice focuses on victim needs and offender responsibility for repairing harm, while traditional criminal justice centers on offenders getting what they deserve through punishment.

Key components of restorative justice include:

1. Bringing together the offender and victim in mediation programs.
2. Mutual decisions on compensation for harm.
3. Encouragement of mutual healing and empowerment.
4. Emphasis on responsibility and accountability.
5. Community support for offender reintegration.

Restorative justice views crime as a violation of people and relationships, whereas traditional criminal justice sees it as a violation of the law and the state.

Restorative justice has not been widely adopted or tested in North America, but it is an available option within the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

In restorative justice, violations create obligations rather than guilt, focusing on the responsibilities of the offender to repair the harm done.

The main topics include cybercrime and cyber-victimization, explanations of online offending, and challenges addressing cybercrime.