Evaluating Conflicts Between Intention and Outcome Within Changing Canadian Juvenile Justice Policy: Just Listen to What the Data Says!

  • Alan W. Leschied
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (ASID, volume 53)

Abstract

In 1984, Canada joined other western industrialized nations in amending their juvenile justice law. Canada no longer views young offenders as errant children requiring guidance, assistance and special protections of the youth court. Youthful offenders are now provided with the full protection of due process within a formal criminal justice system and are held more accountable and responsible for their behaviour. This shift from a rehabilitative youth court to one focusing on deterrence and punishment is reviewed within available data examining the effects on court process and outcomes. The assumption that deterrence is an effective means of suppressing youth crime is challenged.

“Some paradox of our nature leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the object of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the objects of our pity, then our wisdom, ultimately our coercion. ” Trilling (1953)

“When we neglect the weak and helpless, the disenfranchised and disadvantaged, we betray our loving nature and endanger the social future that depends on our caring. ” Gaylin (1978)

“If a theory of rights prevents the achievement of social purpose, there is something amiss either in the theory of rights or in the conception of public purposes. ”Allen (1981)

Keywords

Child Welfare Young Person Juvenile Justice Juvenile Offender Juvenile Justice System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, F.A. (1981). The decline of the rehabilitative ideal: Penal policy and social purpose. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Asquith, S. (1977). “Relevance” and lay participation in juvenile justice. British Journal of Law and Society, 4(1), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, G.A., Leschied, A.W., Jaffe, P.G., & Sas, L. (1986). Factor structure and construct validity of the basic personality inventory with young offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 18(3), 238–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bala, N.M., & McConville, B.J. (1985). Children’s rights for or against treatment. Canada’s Mental Health, 33(4), 2–5.Google Scholar
  5. Bala, N., & Corrado, R. (1985). Juvenile justice in Canada: A comparative study. Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Basta, J.M. & Davidson, W.S. (1988). Treatment of juvenile offenders: Study outcomes since 1980. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 6(3), 355–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyle, M.H. and Offord, O.R. (1988). Prevalence of childhood disorder, perceived need for help, family dysfunction and resource allocation for child welfare and children’s mental health services in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 20, 374–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrington, P.J. & Moyer, S. (1988). Legal representation and dispositions in Canadian juvenile courts. Presented to the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  9. Catton, K. & Erickson, P. (1976). The juvenile’s perception of the role of defence counsel in juvenile court: A pilot study. Toronto, ON: Centre for Criminology, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  10. Corrado, R. R. & Markwart, A. (1988). The prices of rights and responsibilities: An examination of the impact of the young offenders act in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Family Law. (In press).Google Scholar
  11. Cullen, F.T. Clark, G.A. & Wozniak, J.F. (1985). Explaining the get tough movement: Can the public be blamed? Federal Probation, 49, 16–24.Google Scholar
  12. Dichiara, A. & Galliher, J.F. (1984). Thirty years of deterrence research: Characteristics, causes and consequences. Contemporary Crisis, 8(3), 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felstiner, J. (1985) Some observations of practice and procedure under the young offenders act. Google Scholar
  14. Gabor, P., Greene, J. & McCormick, P. (1986). The young offenders Act: The Alberta youth court experience in the first year. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 5(2), 301–319.Google Scholar
  15. Gaylin, W. (1978). In the beginning: Helpless and dependent. In W. Gaylin, I. Glasser, S. Marcos 6c D. Rothman (Eds.), Doing good: The limits of benevolence. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gendreau, P. 6c Ross, R.R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980’s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hackler, J., Garapon, A., Frigon, C. Knight, K. (1986). Closed custody for juveniles: Comparisons between Canada and France. Edmonton, AB: Centre for Criminological Research. Google Scholar
  18. Hanscom, D.K. (1988). The dynamics of disposition in youth court: A report on a survey of youth court judges on matters affecting disposition. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  19. Hunt-Federle, K. (1988). The arbitration of the juvenile court: A proposal for the preservation of children’s legal rights. Presented to the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  20. Jaffe, P.G. 6c Leschied, A.W. (1988). The YOA in the year 2000: Regaining equilibrium in the Canadian juvenile justice system. In A.W. Leschied, P.G. Jaffe, 6c W. Willis (Eds.), The young offenders act revolution: Changing the face of Canadian juvenile justice. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, (In press).Google Scholar
  21. Jaffe, P.G., Leschied, A.W., Sas, L., & Austin, G. (1985). A model for the provision of clinical assessments and service brokerage for young offenders. Canadian Psychologist, 26(1).Google Scholar
  22. Kranthammer, C. (1988). How to save the homeless mentally ill. The New Republic, 22–25. Google Scholar
  23. Leschied, A.W. & Jaffe, P.G. (1986). Implications of the young offenders act in modifying the juvenile justice system: Some early trends. Young Offenders Service. Toronto, ON: Butterworths. Google Scholar
  24. Leschied, A.W., Austin, G.A. and Jaffe, P.G. (1988). Impact of the young offenders act on recidivism rates of special needs youth: Clinical and policy implications. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 20(3), 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leschied, A.W., & Gendreau, P. (1986). The declining role of rehabilitation in Canadian juvenile justice: Implications of underlying theory in the young offenders act. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 28(3), 315–322.Google Scholar
  26. Leschied, A.W., Jaffe, P.G., Sudermann, M., Austin, G. & Willis, W. (1988). The changing profiles of young offenders with special needs: Trends and critical issues. London, ON: Family Court Clinic Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Leschied, A.W. & Jaffe, P.G. (1988). Dispositions under the young offenders act: Conflicting views on social purpose. In A.W. Leschied, P.G. Jaffe & W. Willis (Eds.), The young offenders act revolution: Changing the face of Canadian juvenile justice. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. (In press).Google Scholar
  28. Encouraging trends in crime figures. (1988, September 25). Manchester Guardian Weekly. Google Scholar
  29. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about juvenile reform. The Public Interest, 35, 322–254.Google Scholar
  30. Ruback, R.B. & Innes, C.A. (1988). The relevance and irrelevance of psychological research: The example of prison overcrowding. American Psychologist, 43(9), 683–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saltzman, L.R., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G.P. & Chiricos, T.G. (1982). Deterrent and experiential effects: The problem of causal order in perceptual deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19, 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schneider, A.L. & Ervin, L. (1988). Deterrence and juvenile crime: Examining the behavioural assumptions of public policy. Presented to the America Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  33. Shamsie, J. (1981). Antisocial adolescents: Our treatments do not work - where do we go from here? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 357–364.Google Scholar
  34. Singer, S.I. & McDowall, D. (1988). Criminalizing delinquency: The deterrent effects of the New York juvenile offender law. Law and Society Review, 22(3), 521–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skibinski, G.J. & Koszuth, A.M. (1986). Getting tough with juvenile offenders: Ignoring the best interests of the child. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 37(5), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trilling, L. (1953). The liberal imagination. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  37. Warren, M.Q. (1971). Classification of offenders as an aid to efficient management and effective treatment. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62, 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolfe, D.A. & Jaffe, P.G. (1988). Children in care of the state: Policy issues for the 1990’s. Paper prepared for the Child Youth and Family Policy Centre, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  39. Juvenile Delinquents Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, C.J-3. Young Offenders Act, Statutes of Canada 1980–81–82–83, C. 110. CASES. Google Scholar
  40. Gault (387 U.S. 1 [1967])Google Scholar
  41. Winship (397 U.S. 358 [1970]). Google Scholar
  42. R.V. Kelly G. G. (1988) Young Offenders Service, 3461–69 (Man. Prov. Ct. (Yth. Div), Garfinkel, J. Google Scholar
  43. R.V. Mark J.S. (1988) Young Offenders Service, 3461–67 (83 N.S.R. 2d), Hart, J. Google Scholar
  44. R.V.R.G.B (1988) The Lawyers Weekly, B.C.C.A., Hinkson, J. Google Scholar
  45. R.V. Brian H. (1988) The Lawyers Weekly, Ontario Provincial Court, Felstiner, J. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publisher 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan W. Leschied

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations