Thursday May 14, 2009

- new outline will be posted

- looking at Juvenile Delinquents Act (Appendix A)

4 4 -4 4
Youth in Co
* recall last class
- general notion in R&Z article that justice models historically and present fits on the left-right
continuum

pre-JDA (right)
- classical notion put on individual who chooses to offend ß punishment should deter crime
- severe punishments in pre-JDA era recognized internationally

Models of Juvenile
JDA
- 1st act in CND, with separate justice response for youth
- finally filed after 80 years

Youth Justice Mod

1985-2003
- in less than 20 years, YOA replaced with YCJA
- bifurcated response – instead of 1 response, have a split response dealing with the vast
majority and minority of youth offenders

LEFT – RIG
- self-reported studies provide similar stories (ex. Grades 7-9 reporting on behaviours
violating criminal code)
- concentrated in small minority group towards majority crime

Classical perspectives
- human beings are free, rational, personally responsible

* need to differentiate meaning of ‘deterrence’

The Juvenile
- specific response entailing use of punishment to prevent future offending, and general
deterrence as an example to other people
- associated with classical perspective à rational as root of crime

Criminological Theo
Positivist
- causes with effects
- crime caused by environmental/genetic/sociological… influences
- deal with sources/roots to combat crime

Contemporary perspectives
- shifting attention from crime to definitional processes leading to criminalization
from crime to crime policies
- cp manifest with crime rates

Theories JDA (4444 )

Ex. What is serious? Need to go after…?
Ex. 70s crackdown on drugs
Ex. See downward trend with less sanction on property offences
Ex. focus on crime policies

WELFARE
3 frameworks build on these theories

• Classical perspectives
crime control
- primary goal: prioritizing justice, upholding rule of law
- regardless of social influence, there is a strong element of choice

welfare model

– FreeBala,
will 2005
& personal respo
- draws upon positivists model
- conditions to alleviate likelihood of crime

community change
- draw on critical perspective ; Hogeveen, 20
• Positivist perspectives M
- not only society, but structure is problematic à community need to address issues (c ethos and structure)

– Building
Bio-psycho-social patholo
on Campbell, 2005 a; R
intervention)
 - rooted in (im)moral human beings

- solution
(now considered minor offences)

- execution done in abundance (ex. theft)

- transportation (exile/exclusion)

BEFORE THE
* important strategies in UK and EU to send to new world
* particularly for young

- based on British English common law

CRIME IS ROOTED IN
doli incapaz (Lt.)
- limited moral culpability, particularly in children
- adults are also morally capable of being challenged cognitively

LEGAL STATU
- refer specially to children
- those under 7 were not considered ‘culpable’

SUBJECTS (Classica
- 7 was the traditional medieval age for a ‘moral being’
- infant could NOT be held morally culpable
- age 7-14 were considered morally culpable and subject to adult à up to judge
Ex. CND 8 year old, executed for killing a cow to eat

CHILD
- 2 components must be present in crime for CND & US
mens rea – intent act engaged is a criminal act
actus reus – act itself has to committed
* DI recognizes children NOT able to fully form criminal intent
- exclusion: cognitive, disabled, mental illness (schizophrenic), narcissist, drug (historically)

parens partiae
- notion that state has responsibility to children in those instances where the parents can/will

ENGLISH COM
NOT assume responsibility as moral guide/protector/nurturer/educator

SOLUTION:
- inherent from pre-modern Europe
- included orphaned children à abused/neglect children
- NO criminal act can have said to occur

- early modern à industrial revolution à now

- youth entering in production of service and apprenticeship

- youth socialized in system
- apprenticeship created ranks of impoverished people in urban/rural area

• THE INDUST
- Britain’s response to sweep children off streets to new world à become adoptee for farm
families who needed labour

DETERRENCE
* US shipped NY children to west

- realities in place from traditional system

- high level of crime/violence
- state decision to transport youth abroad

RELEVANT LEGAL
BREAKDOWN OF PRE
STRATEGIES/SANCT
CONTROL – DEMISE OF TH
• THE EMERGENCE OF THE
• DOLI
CRIMINALINCAPAZ
[urban] CLASSES
• WHIPPING
(UNSUPERVISED / UNEMPL
 - drop from 1859 and 1955 (century drop in crime/violence)
- 50s time of low crime/violence

44 th CENTURY
Violent Crime
* list of important moments ß don’t need to memorize

1799
- state beginning to attempt to deal with youth
- children from England sent to CND as adoptees
* families not interested in adopting UNLESS able to work on farms
(BORITC
CHILD PROTECTI
- needed to deal with orphans à municipality held responsible for providing them with
apprenticeship
* parents needed to pay for apprenticeship
- educate to prevent social dysfunction/marginalized population
1799 pre-modern
- industrial revolution emerging from confederation

CHRONOLOGY with
- 1867
- emerge as a nation out of British constitution à still govern law

- child saving = penal welfare

• 4 4 4 4 – UPPER CANADA’S ORP

- US based analysis in 60s, particularly Illinois

- examined US emergence of juvenile justice system

CHILD SAVIN
- international meetings discussing problems of social disorder
- high levels of poverty, parents unable to help children

• 1111 – BROWN COMMISSION

- child saving movement
- middle class wives of professional/business class (now ‘middle-class’)
- those concerned with plight of poor

CONSTRUCT INTROD
• 1111 – REFORMATORY ACTS,
- NEED to know these moral entrepreneurs

(BECKER, 1963 ; HOGEVE

– those responsible through social movement activities of enlisting and mobilizing people at
large
à something needed to be done about conditions for future of CND

CANADIAN
JK

• 1111 – BNAA – ACT OF CONFE

- founded children aid society (CAS) and other charitable organizations/activities

WS

• 1 9 TH CENTURY REFORM
- joined them (GB&JK) in forging new special act for children

* Globe = Globe & Mail (now)

• BUSINESS CLASS
1111 – INDUSTRIAL – VOL
SCHOOLS
THE CAS & J
 - penitentiary designed as progressive activity to deal with crime
- need to reform people
* 1830s development of penitentiary à provide necessary ways to repent and to do good
- adopt strategies and imposed ‘discipline of silence’ à simply reflect on wrongdoings and
make commitment to avoid crime in future (analogy of monk)
- only punished for violating rules of institution
Ex. whipping for talking to each other

THE BROWN EXP

* eating against wall

- Brown exposed in newspaper and investigated Kingston penitentiary (KP)

- exposure outraged people, especially how children were treated like this

- by being rehabilitated and brutalized, it fostered more crime

- person should not be subject to this punishment and should be separate (especially
children)

CHILD SAVING ENT

(HOGEVEE
- “…product of drunk and neglectful…”
- halting disease by saving children OR the whole population will be infected

* Brown brought child saving into CND

IN 1111YOUTH RE
GLOBE REP
EXPOSED
A ABUSES
RECOMMEND I
KINGSTON PENITEN
- 40 years later (1891), child saving (CS) was part of internal discourse as a form of strategy

COMM
- Kelso came across begging children collecting $ for their father à found no housing/shelter
for children
- expose as shame to Toronto à children destituted on streets

KELSO’S
• The
ABUSES
DISCOV
IDENTIFIED AS
“frightening” proble
THREE DISCIPLINESAND --
of the activities of isolatL
- Kelso’s solutions with other international activists

who lived outside the la

* NY state already doing à ON

(HOGEVEE
- Authorizing legislation for CAS to take authority

CHILD
• influences,
LED TO PROTEC
BRUTAL FLOGG
- 1893 – CAS was born

who were pr
- solution of transporting children as adoptees à become productive citizens

TRIFLING OFFENCES AS
- institutions were NOT the place to raise children à need to develop foster families to take

• J. J. KELSO,
parents, GLOBEignor
idleness, REPO
in destitute individuals and raise as own

- Brown rejected reformatories à good strategy is to give them what they DON’T have with

KELSO’S FOS
families (foster)

FOUNDED
taverns THE CAS
and grog-shops(1891
• ONE
suffering 44 YEAR
from -BOY (
“a moral
 - tried to convince government it was worth doing à children were dependence on state
- those in parliament believed authority was needed, and punishment worked

2nd problem
- 1867 constitution gave authority/responsibility/power to create law by federal law, and

W. L. SCOTT
provincial to address/administer social needs
- social response to address criminal problem (inter connected) ß authorize federal to direct
provinces/municipality to save, NOT punish children from crime

JUVENILE DEL
- number of causes of criminal activity (problems)

(HOGEVEE
Brown
- counterproductive to put minor in jail
- likely to be victimized and indicted in criminal thinking/behaviour

Kelso
- source/root of adult offending is poverty ß living in area of heightened deprivation (past:
working/under class)
- poverty was seen as a major source in 19th century (ex. steal when hungry)

•
Causes of deli
SON OF A CANADIAN SENA
- other parliament debates

- urban milieu, family milieu

- family & communities producing criminality is a major problem à need to intervene and
transform communities

• (Campbell, 2005 a;ASSOCIAT

FRIEND / CLOSE Hogevee
solution
- identify those youth in pre-delinquency (at-risk-youth)
- need to rehabilitate/reform

strategy/sanction
- warning by authority
- diversions – send to community agency for assistance

- community supervision – devised under JDA

•• PROPONENT OF PROBATIO
- probation invented as strategy à Kelso say children must be taken from families IF

INAPPROPRIATE CR
incapable
- if at risk of delinquency with family, have probation to meet needs to child

-if NO home, last resort would be reformatory/institution

•
(Brown)
JDA (SOCIOGICAL
AUTHOR P
OF AND LOBBYIS
- 2 theoretical constructs similar and importantly different

- child saving was from moral entrepreneurship (ME) and moral crusade (MC)
- MC get government and people to make changes to alleviate social ills to promote social
good
- mobilize public to assist

•• CRIME IS ROOTED
THE URBAN MILEAU IN
moral panic (MP) – stigmatize and exclude

CONVINCED PARLIAMENTA
* BOTH are elements of morality

THEORIZING MOR
- moral response that should be solved as a political issue of youth justice

CONDITIONS/CRIMIN
OF
OF DELINQUENT
POVERTY CHILDREN
(WORK
ULTRA VIRES POWERS TO
FAMILIES
THE JDA & COMMUN
MORAL ENTREPREN
 AFTER (10
- ages 7-15, 16 (18 Quebec) in varying provinces deeming delinquent
- provinces have jurisdiction over social welfare à difficult to harmonize practices in
sovereign provinces

JDA PROVISIONS (UYJ – AP

trajectoryàreformatoryàtraining school
- ‘refuges’ for children

Juvenile Delinq
probation officer (PO) – outstanding members of society
- province to authorize appointment could serve as PO

superintendent – under CAS

- many agencies falling under umbrella of CAS with responsibilities that may/may-not be ran
by government to meet children needs

– Definitions
4 .(4 ) In–thisTarget/Aim
Act …
- look at the range of acts that qualify them as a state of delinquency
- what is sexual immorality?
Ex. People being murdered for secretly meeting in secret NOT courtship overseen by
parents

“child” means any boy or girl

Ex. Young women found on streets considered prostitute à could be committed to a sexual
refuge for this act of vice

– or Jurisdiction/trials/app
** usually females found for acts of vice/immorality
- vice (any moralizing): gambling

years, such other age as m

JDA Provis
- authority decided whether delinquency or not
à truancy, incorrigible, disruptive…

– Informality & privacy

“industrial
– school” means
Exceptional
- incorrigibility
any
procedu
other reformative institution
- refusal to obey authority no matter when told

- pauperism – being on streets and not be taking care of

– Range of disposition
* delinquency = act + moral danger

provincial statute …
4 .(4 –) In this Act “JUVENIL
Return to …
court“juven
NOT JUST AN
“judge”who
– violates
means
federal or
specifically
any
judge prov
Religion respecteda ju
the of
provincial
authorized s
by fed
–
juvenile Custodial placement
delinquents, seized o
 - what is deemed as condition of delinquency? à brought before children’s court
- many small municipality do NOT have separate buildings à must be separate from adult
trials

- trials were summary – no trials by jury, NOT prolonged, determination made by judge
- criminal code c provide ‘appeal’ for ADULTS VS children found in state of delinquency
(Q: how to appeal what court has made for best interest for child?)

JDA Provisions – J
- just judge’s chamber

4 . Except as provided for in s

- following Brown and others à 13(1)
- CND continue to house children, supposedly for adults OR face violation of juvenile court

offence is indictable], the

- violating protection for youth (ex. youth with adult sitting in transport)

- Instances that would not apply…

cases of delinquency, incl

-

JDA Provisions
the delinquency, the child
the definition of “child”
- indictable (serious) offence
- ordinary (adult) courts

- with JDA, allow serious youth offenders to be trialed as adults ß should be used as an
alternative if interests of youth and community demanded it

51. 3(1.()1… trials

) No under
child, this Acta
pending
JDA Provisions
* rare in JDA

mutandis,
in be
confinementgoverned
in anybyc
relating to summary convi
which adults are or ma
P
detention home or shel
- dispositions (sentences)
- (g) can’t see friends, drink…unless…

(a) the provisions relating t

CAS become something courts could be
if child had legal infraction or destitute

9 .(in
1 )a Where the act c
juvenile court
(3) This section does n
JDA Provisio
provisions
has been made of the
pursua
1 2 .(1 ) The trails of children s
an indictable offe
 - could be brought back to court and before judge

- deemed with delinquency à could be sent to adult (rare)

* no records/publications of how many times allowed

JDA Provision
* age 21, if committed to CSA/foster families ßfound destituted at age 7 + 14 years in
delinquent institution if NO foster family
* rare to see court trial child as adult à need time to reform child

- CND reform religious and cultural provisions

20 .(3 ) Where a child has

* sensitivity forged by reality
- had to write into law à respect religion of child
- every attempt had to be made had to be put in own faith
* custody facilities providing access to faith à should not violate or impose a religion on
youth

delinquent and whethe

JDA Provisions
with in any of the ways
- children under 12 NOT to be in industrial school, penitentiary…

court may at any time,

- not applicable to s. 9

23 (has
1 ) No Protestant child
reached the age o
JDA of any Provisions
Roman Catholic
court has otherwise or
placed in any Roman
or warrant, the delinqu
.and
25nor It shall
is not lawful to c
- invention of committees
- community should be involved in meeting needs of children

any Roman C
- help court to determine what is best interest for child

the court may the

- need to save/rehabilitate/protect child

apparently
the care of under
any Protesth
- filling of present reports, reauthorizing JCC to advise courts

JDAunder
this Provisions
industrial
subsection ( 1–
section school,
does
),
not ua
respect to such child u
been
temporary made to
home refor
…
the child on parole or r
 - socialized justice

- emergence of workers à court workers to come up with appropriate response

ex .social workers, religious leaders to visit homes and make/investigate reports the
situation

THE JUVENILE COU

(Chunn, 2000 [1992 ]);

A SEPARATE MILIEAU
JDA Provision
WORK AND MENTAL H
- arguments against this

INFORMAL, PRIVATE
- home visits become where whole family were supervised

31 . It is the duty of a
- family could be held accountable (ex. Abuse)

- connection between family and children court à progressive era to meet needs of children

THE JDA AND TH

‘COURT WORKERS’ CONTROL RO
(a) to make such (Chunn, inv
- at height of JDA in 1930s, 137 different agencies worked to meet needs o children/family

2000
with info sharing

- name cards analyzed [over ¼ population of TO]

TO UNDERSTAND THE R
HOME by
BEFORE the
VISITS – court
THE COURT
THE ESSENCE (CR
TORONTO’S SOCI
(b)TO to be present
ASSEMBLE AN
ALLOWED FOR IN-DEPT
in
APPR c
 - designed for youth, had penalties for adults too

- if encourage/aid to swear/steal, adult found culpable

- 1908 could be fined up to $200, 2 years

- didn’t supervise child well enough

JDA Provisi
- probation child’s family on probation

- bad criminal justice strategies + bad parenting = target

- ex. helping with running away

33. (1 ) Any person, whether th

who, knowingly or wilfull

(a) JDA Provisions

aids, causes, abets or co
delinquency, or
* need to understand

- sole aim of strategy à supervision, intervention , lack of appeal, closed trials…[state’s

responsibility to deal with child like a parent]

(b) . Any
34 doesperson who indu
any act producing,
JDA
child
beingtoProvisions
leave
or any adete
becoming juv
child home
foster a juvenile
or delinque
any oth
- more strengths or weakness?

fine
child not
has exceeding
been two
placed h
This
4 4 . attempts
periodAct shall
not exceedingbe
to remove su
twl

Small Group/
order
liable
that
or conceals
upon
its
suchpurpo
summary
child
(2 ) Any person who, being th
c
namely, that the
being able to do so knowca
 Additio
JDA (1908-1984)
76 years

** problems and strengths CAN overlap

• Becker, H. S. ( 1963 ). Outside

* JDA extend age depending on the problem
* assumed children cannot be held as adults

- BLACK FONT is what I wrote down

Oxford, England: Free Press G

- ORANGE FONT is what Dr. Ruth Mann wrote on the chalk board

Strengths Weakness
- drastic decline of criminalization
- creation of separate grounds/custody
- probation of child and family
- industrial schools producing productive citizens
- separation custody/industrial school
- probation child/family

• Chunn, D. E. ( 2000 ). “Rehabi

- criminalizing less resulting in reducing crime rate - victims treated more as offenders
* need punishment as norm to uphold values
- religious separation/segregation

Police Courts to Family Courts

- offenders not punished
- religious segregation
- protection of child’s identity à potential stigmatization - act promoting social control
(labeling theory) * impoverished family automatically deemed trouble VS rich

Delinquency: A Turn of the Ce

- contingency for child to be trialed as adult - guidelines set out by agencies?
- treatment over punishment (polar opposites) - no notion of deterrence/punishments à address situation to prevent
- focused on roots offending
- tolerance religious diversity - too much social control

Scholars Press.
- extensive - no agency guidelines
- protect child’s identity - no deterrence
- allowed adult trials
- treatment orient
- focus on roots
- teaches delinquents right and wrong - lack of accountability
* underlying morality of notion of vice * parents to provide moral milieu for children
* assume child receives moral support - court judge, NO jury
- separated child from adult offenders * no consistency of cross cases 1 discretion for judge

• Goode, E. & Ben -Yehuda, N.

- individualized response - no appeals
* recognizing needs * court workers given extreme power
* responsibility of court/officers/sw to come up with treatment - lack of accountability, blame parents
strategy so not emerge as adult offenders - informality of justice, can be arbitrary

Social Construction. Annual R

- teaches right/wrong - no appeals
- individualized
- intervention
- general notion of rehab (foster care…)
- holding parents liable 1 parental accountability
Ex. indicting own child (prostitution)
- rehab and foster care
- protect under 12
- community involvement

•
* probation officers
- informal justice
- protects children Mann, R. M. ( 2000 ). “Struggle
R. Mann (Ed.), Juvenile Crime
- dependent on who administers justice (judge/case
worker/racism…)  can be dangerous without appeal
- - focused more on moral act than crime
* moral factor – imposition on middle class values on working

Reader, pp. 3-1 8 . Toronto: Ca

* assume moral consensus
 - differences in provinces
class ß civilizing (ex. middle class does not swear in public)
- taking children out of impoverished state out of their will à act out
- labeling theory
- over focus moralistic
- provincial variation
- delinquent term is vague by those who determine it
- child help up until 21 with little delinquency level
- system implies government and outside contributors à need
involvement in processes (authority/parents…) for intervention
* whole family may be deemed ‘delinquent’ even if 1 child
* IMPLICIT to provide support
- definition JD too vague/broad
- no relationship/link between act and disposition

- NOT individualized
* authorization of court workers to help