Are Youth Cared for in the Canadian Court System?

In a report for the Canadian Department of Justice, Sharon Moyer and Maryanna Basic discovered that the relationship between the prosecution and defense counsel is very good, in fact they state:

Collegial relationships among Crowns, defense and other court personnel were the norm. With the exception of one court, overall there was mutual give and take and even respect. Few defense complained about difficulties in engaging prosecutors in negotiations. A defense counsel remarked that prosecutors “know the accused better because they work with their files constantly”. “I don”t have to reinvent the wheel each time the same kid comes to court.’ When specifically asked, both Crown and defense respondents said that “incompetence” in their opposite numbers was relatively infrequent.

With this positive relationship between these two bodies, it seems that a court appearance could be relatively less stressful regardless of the situation which brought the young person there to begin with.

Finally this paper will examine the Attorney General who is perhaps the most removed from the youth’s relationship with the court system, but crucial to any person who enters that system. The position is best described by Gerald L. Gall who says,

The office of attorney general is essentially that of the chief law officer of the Crown. In that capacity, the attorney general is responsible for the conduct of prosecutions of offenses on behalf of the Crown and serves as solicitor to the Crown in respect of any civil matters. The bulk of prosecutions conducted in Canada are done under the auspices of a provincial attorney general. In that capacity, the attorney general has the discretion, based on the evidence presented to him or to his agent, to prosecute or not to prosecute in a given instance.

Even though the child has no direct connection to this individual, the actions of this person is crucial to all aspects of the youth’s participation in the justice system.

In Canada the current Attorney General is the Honorable Robert Nicholson, the title he holds as well as minister of justice because the two roles are entwined. This person promotes legislation in the House of Commons which ultimately affects the young person. Also the minister institutes initiatives and programs to better understand youth crime and consequences that arise from certain legislation.

What does this all mean for the youths appearing in courts? Is the court pleasant or at least not damaging to the young person? This paper deducts that the roles of the professionals discussed in this paper allow for a well balanced somewhat quick and positive experience for a young person appearing in court. Appearances can be deceiving though. Without adequate statistics on how youths have perceived their court experiences, it is difficult to say that these professionals are truly beneficial instruments to the welfare of the accused offenders. In a survey for the Canadian Department of Justice, Anthony N. Doob uncovered that judges “ are not confidant that the youth court experience is beneficial to youths. ” With those in the justice system doubting the experience of the child and without the accurate research of how youths would rate their own court encounters, it would be premature to support the notion that the youth ‘ s experience in court is, in fact, beneficial to his or her future.

However, the actual roles of the professionals discussed in this paper have shown that nothing in their description prevents them from making beneficial decisions concerning the reform of the youth. Therefore, in conclusion this paper has determined that those in authority have the power and ability to make beneficial decisions concerning the reform of the child, and the reason the court experience may not be positive for the youth may have more to do with circumstances which occur in court rather than the people who are there with them, or are controlling them from behind the scenes.