Sentencing the Young Person

• Author: Louis Morissette and Miriam Bloomenfeld
• Pages: 919-933



CHAPTER 43

Sentencing the Young Person

Louis Morissette and Miriam Bloomenfeld

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Parliament’s legislative commitment to a special criminal procedure for young oenders rst became

evident in 1894 in an Act respecting arrest, trial, and imprisonment of youthful oenders. In 1908, the

Juvenile Delinquents Act, which applied to any adolescent under sixteen, declared that young oenders

should be classed or dealt with dierently from ordinary criminals and that the welfare of the commun-

ity demanded that they should be guarded against exposure to and association with crime and crimi nals.

e tenor of the Act was that young oenders should be subjected to such wisdom, care, treatment, and

control as would tend to check their evil tendencies and to strengthen their better instincts.

Under that early legislation, the juvenile court could transfer a young oender to adult court if the ju-

venile court was of the opinion that the good of the child and the interest of the community demanded it.

In April 1984, the Young Oenders Act (YOA) was proclaimed in force introducing changes to the

previous leg islation. e YOA raised the age of adolescents covered by the legislation to those under

eighteen years old. e YOA not only recognized that young persons (over twelve years old) should be

held accountable for their actions and that society has the responsibility to take reasonable measures to

prevent further criminal conduct by young persons — by way of rehabilitation programs — but also that

society should be protected from youth crime. e YOA declared that young oenders require super-

vision, discipline, and control, and acknowledged that they have special needs and require guidance and

assistance.

e YOA maintained exclusive jurisdiction over young oenders as a general rule, with the excep-

tional possibility of a transfer to adult, or “ordinary” cour t for a young person fourteen years old or older.

e youth court could send the young person to be tried in ordinary court if the youth court was of the

opinion that, in the interest of society and with regard to the needs of the young oender, the young

oender should be prosecuted in accordance with the law applicable to an adult charged with the same

oence. e application for transfer to ordinary court could be made by the youth or by the prosecution.

It must be emphasized that the maximum length of disposition that could be imposed by the youth

court between 1984 and 1992 was three years, including probation. Conversely, when an adolescent was

sent to ordinary court to be tried as an adult, there was no special provision for the sentence imposed on

the young oender (for example, a 16-year-old convicted of rst-degree murder in ordinary court would

have to serve twenty-ve years in prison before being eligible for parole).