Juvenile Crime And Guilty Offenders

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

In the fight against crime, society requires the need for perpetrators such as disease patients who show somatic symptoms for the satisfaction of their impulses that comes under their conscious mind soon to withdrawal, and it is necessary to take serious measurements from the families in the way of crime prevention in society. In addition, the duty of the police in the prevention of crime should be emphasized with the example of providing sympathy and interest towards the people’s liberty and the role of the offense should be emphasized with its behavior expressing the omnipotence. A child is not born guilty but can be manipulated by society or the guardians in authority can be the reason for the child becoming a delinquent. Juvenile children are contrary to regular guilty offenders, Canadian law highlights an important aspect of our criminal justice system for juvenile offenders compared to adult offenders

Children are individuals who are younger than 18 years of age who are prepared to be socially individual. In this period, the child tries to complete psychological and social development besides physical development. The child is neither a ‘good’ nor a ‘bad’ being born at the time of birth, but as an adult, he interacts with his environment and develops at any time. It is their experience that determines whether it is good or bad. Crimes are acts that transcend the personal sphere and enter the public sphere and break the prohibited rules or laws, whereby legitimate penalties are imposed and require the intervention of the public authority. Guilt is a social problem and juvenile guilt is a part of it. The reasons that push the child to crime are divided into two, mainly individual and social. The effect of individual factors on the child’s inclination to crime is quite small. The child’s becoming a part of the crime and the committing of the crime is a reflection of the problems of society. Therefore, family and society are the main points in the solution of juvenile delinquency. As children move away from crime, there will be healthy, happy societies, and when society finds solutions, children will move away from the concept of crime. In a nutshell, the family and society in which the child is raised and shape in how the child will become an individual and its potency in the future. Juvenile delinquency is a concern for the child’s future and society. In the prevention of juvenile delinquency, The term Juvenile delinquent was established so that young lawbreakers could avoid being classified as criminals and to be treated differently than adult offenders. This type of system was enacted because juveniles do not have the cognitive development as adults do, therefore the punishment and the rehabilitation is different. It is Canada’s role and duty as sovereignty to provide indefectible Canadian law to those who deserve justice. Canadian law has have had a couple of breaches in the wall of deeming justice and fairness for juvenile children, this can be related to the R. V. Truscott case: In 1959, Steven Truscott was only fourteen years old when he was charged with the murder of his classmate Lynn Harper. After his wrongful conviction, Steven spent nearly fifty years seeking justice before he was acquitted by the Ontario court of appeal in 2007. Despite Steven Truscott’s age, Steven was ordered to stand trial as an adult and charged with first-degree murder with a punishment of death by hanging, but gratefully his sentence was changed to life in imprisonment. The miscarriage of justice ruined Steven Trusscot’s life, an innocent kid that received an adult offender’s punishment is not suitable at all. He had to live with that stigma until the truth was revealed. This is an example of failure to provide justice for juvenile children and how deeply it affects them. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1908 to handle juvenile offenses ages of criminal responsibility under the civil law, according to the ages of criminal responsibility for the Juvenile Delinquents act of 1908 it states that ages 14 to 25 are found Liable to be punished, whether capitally or otherwise, ages of under 10 not punishable. The resentment of the act can be seen of its unfairness and mistakes in providing what is suitable for juvenile offenders. The act superseded into the Young Offenders Act in 1984 and then repealed as Youth criminal justice act in 2003. The act indicates that the application of criminal and correctional law applies to those 12-year-olds or older, but younger than 18 of committing the offence. The Criminal code, section 13 states “No person shall be convicted of an offense in respect of an act or omission on their part while that person was under the age of twelve years. Interesting how the view of law corrects its changes from 1908 till 2003 for what’s suitable for juvenile offenders, where the main goal is to rehabilitate and prevent them from being treated as an adult offender such as Steven Trusscot’s miscarriage of justice. The YCJA includes four major principles, crime prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration, and meaningful consequences that differ from adults.

A delinquent under this act has the same rights and privileges as an adult who is charged with a crime, including the options such as the right to bail, preliminary hearing according to the rules of the evidence and the Crown’s obligation in providing the known evidence. There are exceptions to juvenile children under this act, such as special youth courts. The special youth courts are specifically designed for young offenders that should not end up like Steven Truscott. “ notice of a young person being charged, arrested and detained is to be given to his or her parent(s); a young person, if detained in custody, is to be kept apart from adult prisoners; information which may identify young persons who are involved in Youth Court proceedings (as an accused, a witness or a victim) may not be published; the court may exclude persons from the courtroom, and access to a young offender’s record is restricted.”. Sometimes the access to a young offender’s record is restricted because after the age of 18 any criminal records should be erased, in order to keep this statement true, youth courts are specialized in maintaining that promise or it will diminish the person’s life who just turned into an adult. The Youth courts are manifested for the purpose of staying up to the four major principles of the YCJA. These are related to the needs and circumstances of young offenders. Where if young persons are found guilty of an offense, the court may impose a variety of dispositions or sentences. These include an absolute discharge; a fine (not exceeding $1000) and an order to pay compensation to the victim (in kind or by way of personal service); an order to perform community services; the placement of a young offender on probation for up to 2 years (or, in the case of certain serious offences, up to 3 years); and the placement of a young offender in custody for a period of up to 2 years or, for certain serious offences, up to 3 years and 5 years. Which the YCJA encourages the measures of the youth court system for an appropriate and effective way to respond to juvenile children that include police warnings and help to be provided

Moreover, Juvenile children are judged by different version of courts such as the youth courts and have different justice system than adult offenders. Juvenile children are kept away from all kinds of criminal environments and identifying and intervening with the factors that cause them to step into guilt is one of the fundamental duties and purpose to be provided by insuring the YJCA, due to the four major principles of crime prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration, and meaningful consequences that differ from adults. No young child should end up like Steven Truscott. The same crime committed by the young offender and the adult will have different punishments because society recognizes that young offenders do not have the cognitive development that adults have and those young offenders can benefit from the rehabilitation services to prevent recidivism.

Click Here To Order Now!

Related