The Changing Face of Youth Corrections

• Author: Carla Cesaroni
• Pages: 117-133

117

 

e Changing Face of Youth Corrections

 

A. YOUTH JUST ICE LEGISLATION AN D YOUTH

CORR ECT IONS

Youth justice legislation in Canada has alw ays played a key role i n shaping

youth corrections. Canada’s legislative framework has a direct impact on

how many youth are sentenced to custod y and for what oences. Under the

Juvenile Delinquents Act of , notions regarding young people’s s pecial

needs, their v ulnerabilities , and the need to avoid stigmati zation were the

impetus for t he establish ment of youth cus tody facil ities. S eparate cus to-

dial f acilities were pa rt of a larger move toward separate cou rts and a sepa r-

ate justice system. Under t he JDA, concerns about t he corruption or abuse

of chi ldren placed i n correctiona l facilit ies with adults was oen oered a s

justicat ion for separate connement.  e Act prop osed t wo d ie rent ty pes

of custodia l dispositions: commitment to the local Ch ildren’s Aid Society or

commitment to an industrial school or “training school” (normally secure

e author grateful ly acknowledges the comments of Shahid A lvi on dras of this chapter.

 Juvenile D elinquents A ct, SC , c.  [ JDA].

 J.S. Leon, “e De velopment of Canad ian Juvenil e Justice: A Back ground for Re-

form” () : Osgoode Ha ll LJ .

 J. Trépanier, “Juven ile Courts a er  Years: Past a nd Present Orient ations” ()

 Europea n J on Crim Policy a nd Research  .

 Nicholas Ba la, Youth Crimin al Justice La w (Toronto: Irw in Law, ).

   118

fa c i lit i es) . Sentences were indetermin ate, a nd once a youth had received

a c ustodial disposition, the case transferred to prov incial authorities.  e

broad, welfare- oriented nature of the JDA led to dispa rities in the use of cus-

todial sentences, and many yout h spent long periods in train ing schools for

minor oences such as t ruancy and “sexu al immorality.”

In , the Young Oenders Ac t (YOA) moved youth justice legislation

away f rom welfare principles and toward crimi nal law principles. e Act

narrowed the scope of federal law pertain ing to youthfu l oenders to include

only federal o ences. Some of the Act’s other importa nt provisions were the

standardi zation of the age of cr iminali zation, denite leng ths for all d ispos-

itions, t he stipulation of maxi mum sentence leng ths, and certain le gal pro-

tections (e.g., the right to a law yer, provisions governing statement s).

Two levels of cu stody were dened under the Act: open and secu re cus-

tody. “Open custody” under the Act meant () a community residential cen-

tre, g roup home, child care inst itution, or w ilderness ca mp, or () any other

like place or f acility. “Secure c ustody” was dened a s custody in a place or fa-

cility desig nated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province for the

secure containment or restra int of young persons . Secure custody facilities

are generally those i n which restrictions are conti nuously imposed on young

persons by physical barrier s, close superv ision, or lim ited access to t he com-

munity. Open cus tody tends to occupy a mid-range poi nt on the continuum

of punish ment between complete conta inment and reintegr ation, and there-

fore the restrictions are considered less stringent. Open cus tody facilities tend

to consist of several small resident ial facil ities along w ith a net work of com-

munity homes. Youth in open fac ilities sometimes have acce ss to community

schools, recreation in t he community, local employment, a nd treatment.

e lack of clear legislative di rection in the general principles of the YOA

contributed to a number of problems th at would later be identi ed by prov-

 Anthony N. D oob & Jane B. Spro, “Ch anging Model s of Youth Justice in Ca nada”

in Mich ael Tonry & Anthony N. D oob, eds., Youth Just ice: Comparative a nd Cross-

National Pe rspective s, vol.  of Crime a nd Justice (Chica go: University o f Chicago

Press,  ) [Doob & Spro, “Ch anging Model s”].

 Ibid.

 Bala, above not e .

 RSC , c. Y- [YOA].

 Doob & Spro, “Chan ging Models,” abo ve note .

 Anthony N. D oob & Carla Cesa roni, Respo nding to Youth Crime i n Canada ( To-

ronto: Univer sity of Toronto Press,  ).

 YOA, above note , s.  .().