The Fairness and Equability of The Ycja (Youth Criminal Justice Act)

Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) introduced on February 4, 2002 began the first of many  debates, from  questioning its fairness and equitability to the support it was intended to provide for the youth it is intended to  care for.  In spite of the diverse viewpoints,  all facts and logical reasons stand in favour of the YCJA ability to improve  a young offenders quality of life, to preserve their sense of identity,  both the individual and their interpretation of the collective as well as their impact on society.  The YCJA  stands on the solid principle that someone in their developmental years as an individual need not be  punished just for the purpose of punishment to appease the law they have broken, but instead use the offense as an opportunity for society to  fix the conditions or address the problems that created the circumstances which led to the offender  making the decisions they did .   The YCJA is significant legislation for separating the youth from the adult and in doing so preserving their identity and quality of life as someone that society can look to as a law abiding citizen.  Though no legislation is perfect in it’s creation, the YCJA was introduced to satisfy a nobler purpose in accepting the idea that society bears some responsibility for its youth and to do so to the  best of its ability. 

It is in man’s  nature that our society has been instilled with the idea of being given a second chance in life.  We are surrounded with this idea in action.  In baseball it is three strikes you’re out.  After the purchase of a product we have the option to return by law our purchase should we regret our decision.  How fair then is a system of judgement if it does not allow us to make amends for our mistakes?  There are those who may counter by stating that some decisions are made with the full knowledge of consequence and punishment through jail time makes criminals think about what they have done to be where they are.  This may be the case, but to apply this same logic as a point to rally against the YCJA is faulty.  To incarcerate someone in society whose values and beliefs are still being formed by the environment in which they are growing is to halt this growth and remove society’s ability to make the necessary positive influences in a youths self identity.. What good is thinking about how you can improve if you must wait seven years to see if it is possible? Philosophers do not become famous because of their thoughts, they become famous because their thoughts are acted upon.  A victim’s recovery is never expedited because their offender is in jail.  A victim is ultimately served justice when they know that the offender is remorseful for their crime and changes their behaviour so as to not reoffend.  This happens when their offender goes to counselling, cleans up the community or participates in any of the other actions that are presented as a solution by the YCJA.  Our society holds out the greatest promise for change it wants to see in young offenders by offering them upon completion of  any rehab or counselling a clean slate for when they do come of age as an adult.  A previous young offender is given the prospect to become who society would like them to be  – a person studying medicine outside of the country helping others for example – rather than becoming what society would otherwise have labelled them as.  Without the YCJA, that very same youth would be left to bear the weight of a mistake they made when they were fourteen.