Rise and Fall of Dejudicalization in Canadian Youthful Delinquent Legislation

• NCJ Number: 73331
• Journal: Deviance et societe Volume: 4 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1980) Pages: 231-243
• Author(s): A N Doob
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 13 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: 15, Quai Anatole-France; Ministere de L'education Nationale et de la Culture Francaise
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: French
• Country: Switzerland

Annotation

Canadian juvenile justice legislation has alternated for decades between the philosophies of dejudicialization and juvenile court referral and between concern for the young offenders' welfare and the demands of justice.

Abstract

In a sequence of legal measures that have been called changes without change, Canadian judicial attitudes betray indecision toward the problem of juvenile delinquency. On the one hand, efforts have sought to dejudicialize the largest possible number of cases which on the other, legal sanctions against serious offenders were being pursued. Canadian juvenile legislation is ridden with ambiguities and conflicting philosophies. The term juvenile delinquent is applied to all young persons below the age of legal majority who have broken a law, regardless of the triviality or seriousness of their offense (e.g., a 12-year old who has violated a municipal ordinance against riding a bycicle is a juvenile delinquent, just as a 16-year old who has committed a murder). A 1970 bill limiting the designation of juvenile delinquent to young persons guilty of Federal crimes was never enacted into law. The Canadian police have consistently used diversionary powers to keep as many youths as possible out of juvenile court, sharing the awareness of criminologists and psychologists that juvenile justice system involvement is often detrimental rather than beneficial to young offenders. A Selection (or Screening) Bureau established in 1975 to weigh cases for diversion or court processing, is perceived by juveniles (and rightly so) as little different in formality from the juvenile court itself. This unsatisfactory procedure of juvenile case disposition has not affected the basic objective of diversion. after a brief relapse into the justice concept, policies of juvenile offender welfare are again paramount. Members of the Canadian juvenile justice system recognize that not all youths who commit acts that adults regard as offenses are mentally ill or criminal and thus in need of psychiatric help or punishment. The current trend is to consider an informal hearing followed by the release of young offenders into parental custody a sufficient remedy in the majority of cases. Fifteen references are appended. -in French