Juvenile Justice and Young Offenders: A Canadian Overview

2014 ◽  
pp. 107-136
Author(s):  
John Winterdyk ◽  
Anne Miller
1996 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reece Walters

On 22 June 1988 the then Minister for Community Services Victoria, Race Matthews, officially launched the Youth Attendance Order (YAO), a high tariff alternative for young offenders aged between 15 and 18 years who were facing a term of detention. Throughout the order's gestation, much debate occurred about the impact it would have on rates of juvenile incarceration as well as about the potential ‘net widening’ effect it could have on less serious offenders. In May 1994 the National Centre For Socio-Legal Studies at La Trobe University submitted its report evaluating the Victorian Youth Attendance Order. This article presents some of the major findings of that report and examines the future options for this high tariff order in juvenile justice.


1992 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 232
Author(s):  
J. Thomas Dalby ◽  
Alan W. Leschied ◽  
Peter G. Jaffe ◽  
Wayne Willis

1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 675-679
Author(s):  
Alan W. Leschied ◽  
Ken E. Thomas

The current study reviews the personal characteristics of 32 consecutive admissions to a secure custody centre in one southwest Ontario jurisdiction under the Young Offenders Act. Results indicated that there was considerable variability amongst the group regarding court history and the seriousness of the charge on which committal was made. Background history data suggested that the problems of youths committed to secure custody reflect considerable difficulties within families and school. The discussion questions whether the youths in this group are better served through the dispositions emphasizing custody-deterrence or rehabilitation-treatment. Implications for young offender policy are also presented.


1984 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 624-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnold Binder ◽  
Gilbert Geis

For a variety of reasons, some valid, many irrelevant, it has become fashionable within sociological criminology to condemn juvenile diversion. Participants in the condemnatory rituals identify each other as insiders by catchy words and phrases (like “widening the net”), and frequently substitute rhetoric for logic in their argumentation aimed both at gaining cultic recognition and winning over the unwary. Perhaps the most damaging consequence is the forfeiture of influence in an important social process by a large array of social scientists. Contrary to the predictions of some in the cult, diversion remains a flourishing mode of serving young offenders, as indeed it must so long as the present juvenile justice system remains in operation.


Author(s):  
Christopher P. Manfredi

Abstract Recent proposals to reform the Young Offenders Act have sought to address the difficult question of the proper response to youth who commit especially serious offences. This article evaluates these proposals from the perspective or recent developments in US juvenile justice policy that have also been designed to meet serious and chronic youth criminality. The article suggests that a series of US state legislative reforms, in which individual responsibility and system accountability replace rehabilitation as the dominant objective of juvenile justice policy, offers a comprehensive, if imperfect, model for reform.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document