Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:12:03.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Young Offenders Act and Juvenile Justice in the United States: Perspectives on Recent Reform Proposals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Christopher P. Manfredi
Christopher P. Manfredi
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent proposals to reform the Young Offenders Act have sought to address the difficult question of the proper response to youth who commit especially serious offences. This article evaluates these proposals from the perspective or recent developments in US juvenile justice policy that have also been designed to meet serious and chronic youth criminality. The article suggests that a series of US state legislative reforms, in which individual responsibility and system accountability replace rehabilitation as the dominant objective of juvenile justice policy, offers a comprehensive, if imperfect, model for reform.

Résumé

Des propositions récentes de réforme de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants tentent de résoudre la difficile question de la recherche d'une solution adéquate pour répondre aux cas de jeunes ayant commis des délits particulièrement graves. L'auteur évalue ces propositions à partir des politiques développées récemment aux Etats-Unis pour faire face au problème de la criminalité juvénile grave et chronique. Il est suggéré que, même si elle n'est pas parfaite, la série de réformes législatives américaines mettant l'emphase sur la responsabilité de l'individu et sur l'imputabilité du système au lieu de la réhabilitation, constitue un modèle complet et intégré.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 6 , 1991 , pp. 45 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bala, Nicholas and Lilles, Heino, The Young Offenders Act: Annotated (Don Mills: De Boo Publishers, 1984), p. 13Google Scholar. See The Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980–81–82–83, c.110. For an overview of this shift in juvenile justice policy, see Caputo, T.C., “The Young Offenders Act: Children's Rights, Children's Wrongs” 13 Canadian Public Policy 13 (1987), p. 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Reid, Susan A., “The Juvenile Justice ‘Revolution’ in Canada: The Creation and Development of New Legislation for Young Offenders” Canadian Criminology Forum, 8 (1986), p. 1Google Scholar. An excellent collection of essays on various aspects of the Young Offenders Act can be found in Hudson, Joe, Hornick, Joseph P. and Burrows, Barbara A., eds., Justice and the Young Offender in Canada (Toronto: Wall & Thompson, 1988)Google Scholar.

2. Illinois created the first juvenile court in the United States in 1899. See Children's Courts in the United States: Their Origin, Development and Results. H. Doc. No. 701, 58th Cong., 2d Sess. (1904); Lou, Herbert H., Juvenile Courts in the United States (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1927)Google Scholar. The Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908 was the product of a similar movement. See Leon, Jeffrey S., “The Development of Canadian Juvenile Justice: A Background For Reform,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 15 (1977), p. 71Google Scholar.

3. Mack, Julian, “The Juvenile Court,” Harvard Law Review 23 (1909), pp. 119–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Allen, Francis A., The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), p. 2Google Scholar.

5. Comment, , “The Gault Decision and the New York Family Court Act,” (1968) Syracuse Law Review 19 (1968), p. 755Google Scholar.

6. Dembitz, Nanette, “Ferment and Experiment in New York: Juvenile Cases in the New Family Court,” (1963), Cornell Law Quarterly 48 (1963), p. 505Google Scholar; Fabricant, Michael, Juveniles in the Family Court (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1983), p. 25Google Scholar.

7. In re Gault, (1967) 387 U.S. 1, p. 13.

8. Flicker, Barbara D., Standards For Juvenile Justice: A Summary and Analysis (Cambridge, MA; Ballinger, 1977)Google Scholar; Twentieth Century Fund, Confronting Youth Crime: Sentencing Policy Toward Young Offenders (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1978)Google Scholar; National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards For the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980)Google Scholar.

9. Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile Delinquency in Canada: report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965)Google Scholar. This chronology of events is taken from a summary of the process of reform leading to the Y.O.A. prepared by the Young Offenders Directorate of the Department of Justice (on file with the author).

10. For a discussion of criticisms of Bill C–192, see Fox, Richard G. and Spencer, Maureen J., “The Young Offenders Bill: Destigmatizing Juvenile Delinquency?” Criminal Law Quarterly 14 (1972), p. 172Google Scholar.

11. Solicitor General's Committee on Proposals for new legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act, Young Persons in Conflict with the Law (1975)Google Scholar.

12. National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Serious Juvenile Crime: A Redirected Federal Effort (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984)Google Scholar.

13. Unless otherwise indicated, the discussion of state legislative reforms that follows is taken from Benedict J. Roller's comparison of state juvenile codes in Rossum, Ralph A., Koller, Benedict J. & Manfredi, Christopher P., Juvenile Justice Reform: A Model For the States (Claremont, CA: Rose Institute of State and Local Government, 1987) at 104–121Google Scholar. This comparison covers legislation through June, 1986, but does not include court rules, attorney general opinions, or executive orders.

14. Walkover, Andrew, “The Infancy Defense in the New Juvenile Court,” (1984) U.C.L.A. Law Review 31 (1984), p. 523Google Scholar.

15. Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia. New York's Family Court does not have jurisdiction over divorce.

16. The twelve states without a separate status offence classification are Alaska, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

17. US Department of Justice, Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice: 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988) at 79Google Scholar.

18. Interest in the relationship between family factors and delinquency has a long history. See e.g. Canter, Rachelle J., “Family Correlates of Male and Female Delinquency,” Criminology 20 (1982), p. 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gove, Walter R. & Crutchfield, Robert D., “The Family and Juvenile Delinquency,” Sociology Quarterly 23 (1982), p. 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grinnell, Richard M. Jr., & Chambers, Cheryl A., “Broken Homes and Middle-Class Delinquency: A Comparison,” Criminology 17 (1979), p. 395CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rankin, Joseph H., “The Family Context of Delinquency,” Social Problems 30 (1983), p. 466CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilkinson, Karen, “The Broken Family and Juvenile Delinquency: Scientific Explanation or Ideology?” Social Problems 21 (1974), p. 726CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. The exclusiveness of this jurisdiction is subject to two qualifications: offences under the National Defence Act and a provision for transfer of jurisdiction.

20. Young Offenders Act, s.2(1)

21. For a discussion of these obstacles, see Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada, 2nd Edition (Toronto: Carswell, 1985), p. 533–549Google Scholar. One commentator argues that the youth court's jurisdiction must be exercised by s.96 courts. See McEvoy, John P., “The Constitutionality of Canada's Youth Courts Under the Young Offenders Act,” McGill Law Journal 32 (1986), p. 159Google Scholar.

22. See Feld, Barry C., “Criminalizing Juvenile Justice: Rules of Procedure For the Juvenile Court,” (1984) Minnesota Law Review 69 (1984), p. 141Google Scholar.

23. (1971) 403 U.S. 528. These states include Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

24. Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, South Dakota, Washington and West Virginia provide for bail as a matter of right in all cases, while Vermont and Virginia provide for it as a matter of right in felony cases. Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, and Tennessee allow for bail at the discretion of the court. Only Hawaii, Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon and Utah specifically prohibit bail.

25. Miranda right violations require exclusion in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Texas, while any illegally seized evidence is excluded in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. California, Iowa, Louisiana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Tennessee also have special provisions dealing with discovery rules in juvenile courts. For a discussion of pretrial discovery in juvenile proceedings, see Geraghty, Diana, “Juvenile Discovery: A Developing Trend and a Word of Caution,” Pepperdine Law Review 7 (1980), p. 897Google Scholar. For a discussion of confessions under the Young Offenders Act see Hanson, Jim, “Youth Confessions: Section 56 of the Young Offenders Act” Canadian Journal of Criminal Law 6 (1987), p. 191Google Scholar.

26. Young Offenders Act, s.3(1)(e).

27. Id., ss.9, 11, 27.

28. Feld, Barry C., “Reference of Juvenile Offenders for Adult Prosecution: The Legislative Alternative to Asking Unanswerable Questions,” Minnesota Law Review 62 (1978), p. 608Google Scholar.

29. Young Offenders Act, ss.20–26. See Leschied, A.W. & Jaffe, P.W., “Impact of the Young Offenders Act on Court Dispositions: A Comparative Analysis,” Canadian Journal of Criminology 29 (1987), p. 421Google Scholar.

30. Forst, Martin L., Fisher, Bruce A. & Coates, Robert B., “Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing of Juvenile Delinquents: A National Survey of Approaches to Commitment and Release Decision-Making,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 36 (1985), p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This survey of dispositional practices classified the commitment or release decisionmaking structures of five states — Arizona, California, Georgia, Minnesota, and Washington — as determinate.

31. Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and North Carolina provide for restitution as an outright disposition: New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina permit it as a condition of probation.

32. Note, , “The Transfer of Juvenile Offenders to Adult Courts in Massachusetts: Reevaluating the Rehabilitative Ideal,” Suffolk University Law Review 20 (1986), p. 990Google Scholar. See also Feld, Barry C., “Delinquent Careers and Criminal Policy: Just Deserts and the Waiver Decision,” Criminology 21 (1983), p. 195–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. See Feld, , “Legislative Policies Toward the Serious Juvenile Offender,” Crime and Delinquency 27 (1981), p. 497CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. Feld, Barry C., “The Juvenile Court Meets the Principle of the Offense: Legislative Changes in Juvenile Waiver Statutes,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78 (1987), p. 505–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. See e.g., Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code s.707 (Supp. 1983). The California statute lists twenty offences for which waiver is presumptive. These mandatory and presumptive waiver provisions were all implemented between 1976 and 1982.

36. Note, supra note 32, at 1000–1001. Massachusetts faced the additional dilemma of the complete absence of secure juvenile facilities. Id., 1005. On the elimination of juvenile institutions in Massachusetts, see Bakal, Yitzhak & Polsky, Howard W., Reforming Corrections for Juvenile Offenders (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1979)Google Scholar and Miller, Alden D., Ohlin, Lloyd E. & Coates, Robert B., A Theory of Social Reform: Correctional Change Processes in Two States (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977)Google Scholar.

37. Young Offenders Act, s.16. See Bowker, Marjorie Montgomery, “Waiver of Juveniles to Adult Court Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act: Applicability of Principles to Young Offenders Act,” Criminal Law Quarterly 29 (1987), p. 368Google Scholar.

38. Feld, supra note 32, at 202.

39. Id., 197; Feld, supra note 33, at 518.

40. Feld, supra note 34, at 511–513. The states are Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.

41. The exceptions are Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming.

42. Feld, supra note 34, at 514.

43. Citizen's Committee For Children of New York, The Experiment That Failed: The New York Juvenile Offender Law — A Study Report (1984). See also, Bortner, M.A., “Traditional Rhetoric, Organizational Realities: Remand of Juveniles to Adult Court,” Crime and Delinquency 32 (1986), p. 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For similar findings in Utah, see Gillespie, L. Kay & Norman, Michael D., “Does Certification Mean Prison?: Some Preliminary Findings From Utah,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 35 (1984), p. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. Note, supra note 32, at 1006–1007.

45. US Department of Justice, supra note 17, at 79.

46. Feld, supra note 32, at 206.

47. Petersilia, Joan, “Juvenile Record Use in Adult Court Proceedings: A Survey of Prosecutors,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 72 (1981), p. 1746CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. Forst, Fisher & Coates, supra note 30, at 8–10.

49. Id., 10.

50. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 37, ss.705–712 (1983 & Supp. 1984). There is no possibility of parole under this statute, although the juvenile's period of confinement may be reduced by earning credits for good conduct.

51. Note, , “Mandatory Sentencing For Habitual Juvenile Offenders: People v. J.A.,” Depaul Law Review 34 (1985), p. 1094Google Scholar.

52. Id., 1090. See People v. J.A., (1984) 469 N.E. 2d 449 (Ill. App. Ct.).

53. Two authors argue that Canada should adopt a scheme similar to New York State's serious offender provisions. See Besta, Randall W. and Wintemute, Paul J., “Young Offenders in Adult Court: Are We Moving in the Right Direction?” Criminal Law Quarterly 30 (1987/1988), p. 476Google Scholar.

54. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. s.13.40.010 (2) (Supp. 1984).

55. Washington State Juvenile Disposition Standards Commission, Washington State Juvenile Dispositions Standards Philosophy and Guide (1984) at 9Google Scholar.

56. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. s.13.40.020 (Supp. 1984). Serious offenders are juveniles fifteen years or older found guilty of a Class A felony or of a Class B+felony in which bodily harm or a weapon was involved. Minorlfirst offenders are juveniles sixteen years or younger who have committed three or fewer offences with no felonies, or who have committed a Class B felony without any prior offences. All other offenders are referred to simply as juvenile offenders.

57. Schneider, Anne Larason and Schram, Donna D., “The Washington State Juvenile Justice System Reform: A Review of Findings,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 1 (1986), p. 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Compare this generally positive evaluation of the Washington reforms to the more ambivalent findings about the impact of the Y.O.A. in Gabor, Peter, Greene, Ian, and McCormick, Peter, “The Young Offenders Act: The Alberta Youth Court Experience in the First Year,” Canadian Journal of Family Law 5 (1986), p. 301Google Scholar; Corrado, Raymond R. and Markwart, Alan, “The Price of Rights and Responsibilities: An Examination of the Impact of the Young Offenders Act in British Columbia,” Canadian Journal of Family Law 7 (1988), p. 93Google Scholar; and Wilson, Larry C., “Changes to Federal Jurisdiction Over Young Offenders: The Provincial Response,” Canadian Journal of Family Law 8 (1990), p. 303Google Scholar.

58. von Hirsch, Andrew, Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments (1976)Google Scholar. Other future-oriented goals criticized by the just deserts approach are deterrence and incapacitation.

59. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. s.13.40.110 (Supp. 1977).

60. State v. Lawley, (1979) 591 P.2d 772 (Wash. Sup. Ct.). The British Columbia Court of Appeal reached a similarly bizarre conclusion with respect to the Juvenile Delinquents Act in R. v. S.B. (1983) 146 D.L.R. (3d) 69 (B.C.C.A.).

61. Model Statutory language (along with explanatory commentary) that could be adopted with minor changes to account for differences between Canada and the United States can be found in the Model Juvenile Delinquency Act produced by the Rose Institute of State and Local Government and the American Legislative Exchange Council. See Rossum, Roller & Manfredi, supra note 13, at 44–50, 65–67.

62. Lyons v. The Queen, [1987] 2 S.C.R.309. In Lyons, the Court held that the “dangerous offender” provisions of the Criminal Code did not violate the “principles of fundamental justice” protected by s.7 of the Charter. Although Lyons did not involve the equality rights provisions of s.15, the Court deferred to Parliament's desire “to identify those offenders who, in the interests of protecting the public, ought to be sentenced according to considerations which are not entirely reactive or based on a ‘just deserts’ rationale.” While this does not speak directly to the issue considered here, it suggests that the Court might be receptive to legislative categorization of young offenders.

63. Feld, supra note 28, at 609–11. See also the discussion in Walkover, supra note 14, at 539–43.

64. The trend toward criminalizing juvenile justice in Canada is not without its critics. See e.g. Wardell, William J., “The Young Offenders Act: A Report Card, 1984–1986,” Journal of Law and Social Policy 2 (1987), p. 39Google Scholar and Hackler, Jim, “The Impact of the Young Offenders Act,” Canadian Journal of Criminology 29 (1987), p. 205Google Scholar.