Understanding the Principled Arguments for Criminalizing Misbehaviour by Youths under Twelve

• Author: Anthony N. Doob and Jane B. Sprott
• Pages: 183-194

183

 

Understanding the Principled Arguments for

Criminalizing Misbehaviour by Youths under

Twelv e

 .    . 

In our everyday lives  perhaps espec ially for those of us who study the

youth justice sy stem in Canada  we expect to r un into people whose views

on something important dier from ou r own . W hen a minister of justice

implies th at by dropping the word “deterrence” into the Youth Criminal Jus-

tice Act youth crime will be decreased, one can smile politely, being quite

condent that he doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talk ing about.

More important, one is not challenged by his assert ion. Few of those who are

knowledgeable about youth crime and youth jus tice toward the end of the

e prepara tion of this pap er was aided by g rants from t he Social Sc iences and Huma nities

Resear ch Council of C anada to each of u s.

 is is not , of course, a hy pothetica l example. On  No vember , the D epartment of

Justice ne ws release coi nciding w ith the intro duction of Bil l C-, Youth Crim inal Justi ce

Act, d Sess. , th Parl.,  , stated that t he “e Honourable R ob Nicholson, M inister

of Justice a nd Aorney Ge neral of Cana da, today intr oduced legis lation that w ill pro-

vide new mea sures to prote ct communit ies from youn g oenders who pos e a signica nt

risk to pu blic safet y. e provisions i nclude: [a]mending the Youth Cr iminal Just ice

Act . . . to allow cou rts to consi der deterrence a nd denunciat ion as objecti ves of youth

sentences ” (at ). In fact, h ad the bill be come law, sentences u nder the Youth Crim inal

Justic e Act “may have [had] the follow ing objecti ves . . . [to] deter the young perso n and

other youn g persons from c ommiin g oences” [emphasi s added]: Bill C-, ibid. , s.

()(f). However, even that pro vision was s ubject to the prop ortional ity requi rement.

Said di erently, the sen tence would sti ll have to be prop ortionate to t he seriousnes s of

the oence a nd the youth ’s responsibil ity for the oe nce, and the judge w ould stil l be re-

quired t o hand down, w ithin propor tionalit y, the most rehabi litative s entence possib le.