Overview: Declarations and Principles of the YCJA
Parliament enacted the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”) in 2002 and abolished the preceding Young Offenders Act. The YCJA sets out a very different scheme for dealing with young persons alleged to have committed serious offences. The most significant differences are that the YCJA does not allow for the transfer of a young person to adult court and a young person’s election and mode of trial is intimately connected to whether the prosecution seeks an adult sentence. Except to the extent that they are “inconsistent with or excluded” by provisions of the YCJA, the provisions of the Criminal Code apply to offences alleged to have been committed by young persons.
The youth criminal Justice system is intended to prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person’s behaviour who has committed an offence to ensure that he or she is subject to “meaningful consequences” for his or her offence, in order to “promote the long-term protection of the public.” The reason for the enactment of the YCJA is defined in section 3 of the Act. Here, the youth criminal Justice system is separate from the adult system and emphasizes:
- rehabilitation of the young offender and reintegration into the community;
- fair and proportionate accountability for the young offender that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity;
- enhanced procedural protections to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and their rights, including their rights to privacy, are protected;
- timely intervention that reinforces the offending behaviour and its consequences; and
- promptness and speed by persons responsible for enforcing the YCJA, given young persons’ perception of time.
The promptness contained in subsection (b)(v) is not a new requirement. It was central to the interpretation of the former Young Offenders Act. Consequently, the guidelines established by the jurisprudence interpreting that Act are still relevant to the interpretation of this provision. For example, in one particular case, an intake period of five weeks, a scheduled trial date five weeks later and a brief three week adjournment could not be said to be unreasonable.
Accountability may be accomplished by meaningful consequences imposed upon the offender. Specific sanctions that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society also promote accountability. The purpose of accountability is to reflect the sentencing principle of retribution and a reasoned and measured determination of an appropriate punishment to reflect the moral culpability of the offender.
Continued in Part 2.
The above is the an excerpt of Patrick J Ducharme’s book, Canadian Criminal Procedure, available at Amazon or in bulk through MedicaLegal Publishing along with Criminal Trial Strategies.
Subscribe to Patrick Ducharme’s Youtube Channel