The Youth Criminal Justice Act in Teresa Robinson’s Case

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.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Source 1 and the YCJA
Source 2 and the YCJA
Source 3 and the YCJA
Personal Opinion/Recommendations
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The case of Teresa Robinson is among the most shocking offenses of recent years investigated in Canadian youth courts. Teresa, an 11-year-old Manitoba citizen, disappeared in Garden Hill First Nations in May 2015 and was found dead with the signs of sexual assault a few days after (Dangerfield, 2016). The crime gained traction in the media as the murderer turned out to be a 15-year-old boy. This paper summarizes three media articles on the case’s different stages, implements the Youth Criminal Justice Act of 2002, and offers recommendations regarding seeking mental health services.

Source 1 and the YCJA

The first media source is dated 2016 and relates to the unnamed convict’s first appearance in court. The investigative procedures involved taking DNA samples from men aged 15-65 living near the crime scene (Dangerfield, 2016). As a result, a 15-year-old boy living in Garden Hill First Nations became the key suspect and was arrested without incident in March 2016 (Dangerfield, 2016). The boy appeared in court at the Manitoba Juvenile Detention Center and did not demonstrate any interest in communicating with the media, and his family was opposed to the journalists’ presence. The elements of the law relevant to the article’s details include Part 6 10.1, according to which an underage offender’s identifying information, including the name, should not be published (Youth Criminal Justice Act [YCJA], 2002). The reasons for its relevance are that Dangerfield (2016) has no access to the offender’s information. The details pertaining to DNA evidence also partially relate to the act’s access to records rules (YCJA, 2002). These mention DNA forensic analyses as suitable evidence in youth cases, the access to which is obtained under very specific circumstances.

Source 2 and the YCJA

The second article reports the admission of responsibility in this case. According to Pritchard (2017), in December 2017, the detained teen pleaded guilty to the murder of Teresa Robinson. According to the boy’s lawyer, he was ready to admit that a sexual assault had preceded the murder, meaning that the crime would be classified as first-degree murder. The accused was scheduled to return to court in February, and the attorney and defense lawyers were planning to recommend a maximum sentence of ten years for underage convicts (Pritchard, 2017). Part 6 10.1 of the YCJA (2002) is relevant to the article since the offender’s name is still unreported despite the evidence of his involvement in the homicide (YCJA, 2002). The anticipated ten-year sentence mentioned in the source aligns with the Youth Sentences rule 42.2i (YCJA, 2002). According to it, first-degree murders committed by young offenders are punished with sentences not exceeding ten years and comprised of up to six years in custody and under conditional supervision (YCJA, 2002). Therefore, the article demonstrates clear connections to the YCJA provisions.

Source 3 and the YCJA

The most recent article details the selected sentence and the offender’s reactions in court. According to MacLean (2018), in February 2018, the teen was sentenced to six years in prison and four years of court supervision. The sentence, which also included a ten-year weapons prohibition order, was approved by Judge Chris Martin (MacLean, 2018). The absence of mental illness or prior experiences with abusive acts made the convict’s motivations even harder to understand. He expressed the desire to get the necessary help and said sorry to the victim’s family (MacLean, 2018). The Youth Sentences Rule 42.2i is relevant to the final verdict as it contains the ten-year limit that has been considered in the case (YCJA, 2002). Additionally, the decision to prohibit the possession of weapons aligns with the Mandatory Prohibition Order rule 51.1 (YCJA, 2002). Mandatory prohibition orders added to appropriate sentences are required for offenders guilty of violent acts against people (YCJA, 2002). With that in mind, the punishment allocation procedures specified in the YCJA are relevant to the article’s contents.

Personal Opinion/Recommendations

From my viewpoint, based on the details reported in the media, the case of Teresa Robinson’s homicide does not look overcomplicated or suggestive of any other offenders’ presence. Specifically, the DNA from the liquids in the victim’s body clearly matched the offender’s DNA sample, and his overemotional reactions to the pictures of the corpse also indicated his involvement (MacLean, 2018). However, coming up with relevant recommendations for the offender is a challenging endeavor due to his act’s incomprehensible violence and the absence of clear information on the motives. The offender’s criminal capacity has not been called into question, but his actions’ nature implies the presence of intense sexual interest in prepubescent girls, which points to the possibility of developing pedophilic disorders later in life. Thus, to prevent the risks of further episodes of violence after serving his sentence, the offender should proceed with his previously expressed desire to receive help. He should actively seek mental health treatment and assist the corrections system in determining the deeper motives of his act.

Conclusion

In summary, the killing of Teresa Robinson and the subsequent investigations reveal various aspects of the YCJA. These include the maximum sentence for underage offenders committing first-degree murders, crime classifications, identity protection provisions, and the use of weapon prohibition orders. Information reported in the media does not hint at the risks of a false accusation, so the offender can only be recommended to actively collaborate with the corrections system and request mental health help.