Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Crown must justify adult sentences: ruling

KIRK MAKIN

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 3:23 AM EDT 17/05/08

Narrow majority finds it morally, legally wrong to treat violent youth like adults for purpose of sentencing ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. edwardo plazinski from Canada writes: There are some crimes committed by youth that are just too heinous for the perpetrators to be written off as young offenders. The 'majority' obviously has had no exposure to roving gangs bent on mindless violence that usually leads to severe injury and even death for their victims.
  2. Matthew McKenzie from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: Well these judges live in posh homes, probably drive BMW's, Lexus's and Audi's and have probably and they want to be making $300 000 a year.

    These elitist judges are causing crime to go up. When is the last time one of these judges have ever had to face a thug on the street? Probably never. Time to fire these elitists and time to start electing judges.

    And if the government has to use the notwithstanding clause to overrule these activist elitists, I say DO IT. Someone has to speak for these out of touch judges.
  3. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    Another CTV GM Liberal agenda. Treat the violent kids with kid gloves, pander to them, give them money, they had bad parents (Liberal voters)
    Liberal Judges are only responding to the Liberal Establishment in places like Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver.
    These so called kids need to go to jail, and rehabilitation. Raised by dysfunctional parenting, they have no respect accountability or sense of responsibility. Better still after they go through rehab., a stint in the Army where they learn self discipline, to respect and become positive contributers to society.
  4. Leal Bois from Canada writes: Matthew McKenzie: Stop panicking and read the ruling; the Crown can still ask for a teen to be tried as an adult, it's just not automatic anymore. And why should it be anyway when the state considers that you must be 16 years old to consent for s-x, 18 to vote and 19 (in some provinces) to drink beer (for some reasons, drinking beer apparently need more maturity than voting or having s-x). If you consider that teens are responsible for their actions (which is fine) then they should have all the privileges that come with being an adult.
  5. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Has anyone consider a redefinition of a 'young' to describe an 'offender'?

    Do present day 'young offenders' have the same maturity as those similarly described at the time the original law relating to 'young offenders ' came into being?
  6. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes: The Young Offender Act and the Criminal Youth Justice Act are failed social experiments by a failed idealogy from a failed political party. When I hear about kids breaking into a house and microwaving a cat, I care absolutely NOTHING about rehabilitation. I want the justice to be strong, and absolutely totally ruthless. The judges have forgotten who they serve. Stephen Harper is absolutely completely right about activist judges who think they can flout the laws of the land they are sworn to uphold. My fellow Canadians, the good people of Camrose Alberta are the ones to be emulated, not the pedantics of judges who only see crime and punishment as mere intellectual abstractions to be debated so pedantically, like its some kind of game. The people of Camrose have forced the parents of those 4 teenagers who microwaved that cat to move away, so palpable was the anger and threats that were made against them. I only wonder if someone will follow through on their threats before the exodus is complete. When I look at my cats sleeping beside me, I know for certain that justice must be harsh in order to instill fear in people who laugh at the justice system as it now is. It exists to protect the vulnerable and innocent, not the brash and guilty and remorseless who continue to walk in Canadian society with impunity, thanks to the Liberals.
  7. DON BARTA from Canada writes: It's time for a tough love policy for young criminals - If that don't work then it's time for tough locks....
  8. Vern McPherson from writes:
    '“This does not make young persons less accountable for serious offences,” she said. “It makes them differently accountable. Nor does it mean that a court cannot impose an adult sentence on a young person.”

    SO ? What's the problem ??

    You COns are out to lunch as usual. COns want to govern and make public policy and law based on anecdote and a make a new law every time some crime ocurrs. Even little children in grade school know that is not possible ..........
  9. Matthew McKenzie from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: Youth crime is up, haven't you read the reports? These elitist judges probably have never been vicitimized by a street thug. If they were I am sure they would change their minds very quickly and start being tough on crime.

    Down Town I think your a coward for not using your real name, obviously you need to hide. And second of all the federal government can invoke the notwithstanding clause. I think you should read a book or two.

    It is time for the government to scrap this joke of an act. Harper is trying to get tough on crime, but he is stopped by the hug a thug Liberal and NDP.
  10. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Just give them a snuggle.

    It's all they've ever needed.

    Liberal thought processes.
  11. G Montcler from Canada writes: Once more, a group of old leftist (e.g.Abella) geezers, disconnected from the everyday life of Canadians, deciding what's good for the country!
  12. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'Madam Justice Rosalie Abella '

    Another 'gift' from the Liberal Party to the people of Canada.
  13. Jesus does NOT vote Conservative from Red Deer, Canada writes: An excellent ruling.

    By the way, the Conservatives shouldn’t expect to have it both ways. For example, the Conservatives say that someone 15 is too young to understand what they are doing by consenting to engage in sex with a person over 18 (or whatever the new age is), then in the next breath, they say that a person who is 15 is an adult and should be punished as an adult if they commit a serious crime.
  14. In a Fog from Toronto, Canada writes: Why don't we donate money for a private organizaton to open up a halfway house for young offenders in the judge's neighbourhood? I'm in for $10.
  15. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: In A Fog.. I'm sure that your suggestion would break some law or other. You have the right idea but the wrong approach. Form a group and lobby for a safe injection site instead. This would remove the criticism of going after the target but would be providing a 'service for the downtrodden.' See same results but with a 'noble' purpose.
  16. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    I am sure that the writers of CYCJ Act surely had good intentions, but it is already 5 years old and perhaps somewhat already outdated.

    There is no doubt that the nuclear family has broken down, that there are questionable roadblocks to child discipline, that the teaching of morality and ethics, right from wrong, are not what they used to be either on the home front or the school front...basically stated, much has changed in the past decade or more, and the education of basic moral principles is left wanting on all fronts.

    Does throwing money at a problem solve it? Perhaps not, but education may go a long way to helping the situation.

    Of course everyone deserves a second chance, certainly 'youth,' but it becoming more apparent that in several cases, society as a whole is not being well served.

    Perhaps it is time to take a step back--to re-classify individual criminal acts, and get back to the basic premises of sentencing that being:

    Public Denunciation hopefully leading to Deterence what we don't have now for some reason, Incapacitation where necessary, Rehabilitation, and clearly Restitution to the victims.

    One without the others will not work
  17. Gord Cee from Canada writes: Just another ruling that should dispense with the last glimmer of respect for our courts, in particularly the supreme court
  18. Tom Kelly from Canada writes: Yes the Act needs to be updated to consider today's reality...for sure, however this ruling is about 'reverse onus' which must be stamped out at every opportunity as it is tending to creep into our justice system and undermines the core principal of our justice system.

    This decision is about needing to prove an allegation or providing evidence for a request to the court. Those of us with experience in the Canadian system can see that too often the proof that should be required is not demanded and reverse onus enshrined into any legislation is very dangerous.
  19. Boreal Moose from Canada writes:
    Yeah yeah yeah.
    Kids don't respect their elsers anymore. The world is going to heck in a handbasket. Not enough Sunday school attendees...blah blah blah. But somehow, if we force every 15 year old Johnny Car-Jacker to argue in court why he should NOT be raped in big-boy prison by adults while serving his time (instead of the Crown arguing why he should) we'll solve a myriad of complex issues. Church attendence will go up, more women will stay home to raise the kids, and immigrants will all aspire to be Ward and June Cleaver.
  20. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: .
    The Canadian form of democracy has built in checks and balances. We have the Commons, the Senate and the Judiciary. Each keeps the others in check.

    So far this system has kept us as the most desirable nation in the world with millions around the globe waiting in line to join us.

    This latest ruling is an example of one of those checks and balances functioning properly.
  21. Wayne Walker from Canada writes: Leal Bois: This is not about being tried as an adult. The clause dealt only with the sentencing of a youth who has been found guilty of a serious violent crime. The provision was prompted by extremely light sentences given to teens who had killed or crippled someone. Judges who handed down those light sentences said that they were obligated by the YJA to consider only the rehabilitation of the offender and could not consider deterrence or retribution. Our great compassion for all youth offenders including the seriously violent left no room for compassion for their victims.

    Vern McPherson Those same school children also know that they can not be punished by the police for many crimes and the older ones know that there is no serious punishment for serious crime. Please note that this provision dealt only with those found guilty of serious violent crime. Try to think as the relative of an 80 year old seriously hurt in a violent home invasion.

    Dr O'Boogie Do you then consider the 4 judges who dissented as neocons who would support Islamic law? Including Marshall Rothstein? With a 5-4 decision there are clearly solid arguments on both sides of the question so it is rather ignorant to resort to playground name calling.
  22. CD W from Canada writes: A simple solution, is for any conviction of a crime of violence, publish the picture and name of the offender. He can have his 3 days of house arrest, nintendo and pizza, but we should also know him, and avoid him the rest of his days. Thankfully some of us have the means to find out stuff about folks, and some good spidey senses, so when my daughter shows up with a guy from somewhere else, I can go to ground and find out about him.
  23. Boreal Moose from Canada writes: Wayne Walker - are you SURE? Because if you are, I would be more likely to change my opinion. Reverse onus regarding juveniles spending adult time in adult prison I am NOT in favour of. But if this really is only about lengthening the sentencing structure for youth crimes, fine. As long as it was served in youth facilities and the system acknowledged that it was in our interests to plan for releases which didn't more or less guarantee failed adults with no skills being let loose at age 35.
  24. Boreal Moose from Canada writes: CD W from Canada - I pity your daughter and her future boyfriends.
  25. R C from Toronto, Canada writes: Thank goodness the court made this call.

    This is not about letting young people 'off easy' as some commentators herein bluntly suggest. This is about giving a procedural right to young people as a measure of extra protection, in light of their diminish moral responsibility. The Crown will have the opportunity to argue that with certain offences and accused, adult sentences should used; defence will respond; and the court will decide. For certain there will be appropriate cases where adult sentences will be imposed. The starting point is htat an adult sentence will not be imposed unless the Crown can show why this should be so.
  26. Vern McPherson from writes:
    R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: 09:06

    ------------------------------------------

    Then I take it you are celebrating this ruling ???
  27. Vern McPherson from writes:
    '“This does not make young persons less accountable for serious offences,” she said. “It makes them differently accountable. Nor does it mean that a court cannot impose an adult sentence on a young person.”

    SO ? What's the problem ??
  28. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Vern McPherson from writes:
    R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: 09:06

    ------------------------------------------

    Then I take it you are celebrating this ruling ???

    Morning VERNIE: Absolutely the right ruling. The CPC is wrong on this one. Reverse onus is a very slippery slope. That said, we really need to re-open the COMPLETE issue of youth crime-certainly the violence crimes. Also, I don't understand how throwing a teen to the lions solves anything......yet society must also be protected from those older teens who know the rules and the game quite well.....the dilemma.
    .
  29. mary wells from Canada writes: Doesnt matter if you are young or old, if you murder anyone, from an innocent baby to an elderly citizen, even in the most vicious manner, in Canada, you only go to jail for as long as it takes to grow a nice head of hair.........
  30. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: edwardo plazinski wrote: 'There are some crimes committed by youth that are just too heinous for the perpetrators to be written off as young offenders.'

    Agreed, although I would differentiate between a horrible crime committed by a twelve-year-old and one committed by a sixteen-year-old--the point being that there are different stages in the development of a moral and social consciousness, self-control, and understanding of consequences.

    The majority ruling does not take away the option of the court to treat specific crimes by youth as adult offences; it merely confirms that the onus is on the crown to show cause why a case should be treated as an adult offense.

    It makes sense to me that the default treatment for minors comes under the youth crime provisions of the law--for the reasons given by the majority; there should be no automatic trial of youth in adult court, based simply on the nature of the crime. That is too crude an approach, and one subject to the opposite kind of abuse than too-light sentencing of youth for serious crimes.
  31. Nickstar One from Canada writes: '....Narrow majority finds it morally, legally wrong....'
    Dollars to doughnuts, these are the same activist lot(in total denial of activism) who believe there is nothing 'morally, legally wrong' in 'reading in' into the Charter something that was never intended to be in the Charter in the first place. No surprise here, 13 years worth of Lieberal appointments(save 1 or 2) conforming to 'Lieberal deep thoughts straight out Jack Handey's(SNL) handbook'.
  32. Martha K from Canada writes: today's paper reported $1 million dollars worth of damage to a Brampton mall - when 3 teens set fire to it - 13, 14, and 15 years of age. They were caught and remanded to the custody of their parents. Because of the YOA they cannot be named. The mall will have to be closed for some time - putting pressure on a lot of small businesses and the mall management's insurance will skyrocket.

    The boys will see no reformatory or jail time. How does this serve anyone? What lesson does it teach the boys or their parents? A crime where absolutely no one pays. Not one single person pays for this crime - or claims responsibility for it. This is what worries me. Our leniency with young offenders. I'm all for rehabilitation but you can't do that unless someone is institutionalized.
  33. Martha K from Canada writes: Vern McPherson from writes:
    '“This does not make young persons less accountable for serious offences,” she said. “It makes them differently accountable. Nor does it mean that a court cannot impose an adult sentence on a young person.” SO ? What's the problem ??

    The problem is that the court never or extremely rarely DOES impose an adult sentence. It's a kind of scape-goat clause that is never implemented.
  34. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Martha K from Canada writes: today's paper reported $1 million dollars worth of damage to a Brampton mall - when 3 teens set fire to it - 13, 14, and 15 years of age. They were caught and remanded to the custody of their parents. Because of the YOA they cannot be named. The mall will have to be closed for some time - putting pressure on a lot of small businesses and the mall management's insurance will skyrocket.

    The boys will see no reformatory or jail time. How does this serve anyone? What lesson does it teach the boys or their parents? A crime where absolutely no one pays.

    Morning Martha-Until the idea of 'You broke it-you pay for it' becomes the norm and part of the needed victim restitution, all will continue as usual. I would bet the 'Teens' doing this kind of junk absolutely understand the law where there are no consequences.

    We need: Public Denunciation hopefully leading to Deterence what we don't have now for some reason, Incapacitation where necessary, Rehabilitation, and clearly Restitution to the victims.
  35. Anne Peterson from Canada writes: Anyone who studies the brain knows that the part that is aware of the results of actions does not develop until the early or mid twenties. This is no longer conjecture. It can be seen through use of modern machines exactly where the neurons in the brain are firing. Do government MPs ever read?

    So to condemn all youth to adult punishment is truly unreasonable. There may be a very very few who require more severe punishment or treatment. Judges should be able to tell the difference.

    We should study the European countries who use many methods of handling juvenile crime and have a much lower incidence than we do and tons lower than the US. Now I will wait for the accusation that I am a US hater. Funny that when you state facts it is interpreted as bias.
  36. Big Cayman from South Toronto, Canada writes: Judges know exactly what its like to be victimized, especially the Honorable Justice Marshall Rothstein writing for the minority as his former colleague Judge Alban Garon of the Ferderal Courts was murdered along with his wife and friend last year. Matthew McKenzie from Thunder Bay said: "Youth crime is up, haven't you read the reports?" Please show a refernece to this, because over the last 3 decades youth crime has been overall on a downward trend. Consider these per Stats Can: "Youth homicides hit a record high in 2006, but the overall rate of youth crime was down a whopping 25 per cent from its 1991 peak...Statistics Canada noted that homicides make up a tiny portion of youth crime and rates can fluctuate substantially from year to year. 5 years earlier, the youth homicide rate was at a 30-year low...Nearly 80 per cent of youth involved in violent crime were accused of common assault - the least serious form. But the increases took place at the same time that overall crime was declining...By simply changing the laws and going after tougher sentencing for youth, the government "is looking for cheap and simple solutions to complex and expensive problems," said Nicholas Bala, professor of Youth Justice Law at Queen's University. Must be taken seriously, but added there are other methods of dealing with it than tougher sentencing. Bala suggests the Conservatives should be looking at improving access to mental health programs and youth employment programs - "programs that are actually changing the lives of young people." The overall rate of youth crime was down six per cent compared to a decade earlier and 25 per cent since the peak year of 1991. The rate climbed only three per cent between 2005 and 2006." StatsCan noted homicides were responsible for just .05 per cent of overall youth crime and less than one per cent of all violent crimes in which a weapon was present in 2006." http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJsG15FLAImnCrRCQv2aiVaNPoZQ
  37. Missy Robertson-McMurchy from Toronto, Canada writes: If the so-called 'young offenders' had lived during the reign of King George III, they wouldn't have received such lenient sentences. Far from receiving today's judicial slapette on the wrist, the little darlings would have been off to the work house, Australia or the gallows. In any case, they paid for their crimes. Long live the king!
  38. Kim Morton from Canada writes: As usual the Supreemes are our of touch with reality. Perhaps a drug rehab or minimum security prison in their posh neighborhoods would open their eyes and get their noses out of books.
  39. Martha K from Canada writes: Anne Peterson from Canada writes: Anyone who studies the brain knows that the part that is aware of the results of actions does not develop until the early or mid twenties. ....Do government MPs ever read?So to condemn all youth to adult punishment is truly unreasonable. ....." Anne, no one is suggesting that ALL youth be condemned to adult punishment, only that they be punished at all! Under the YOA, many are sent home for lesser crimes that an adult might spend 5 years in jail for. This is not a deterrant. Even a soft-hearted rehab centre might work but judges often give these young boys/girls home confinement time. That's shameful and an added emotional burden to the victims whether they be businesses or individuals. R. Carriere has it right on the money, when he says that public condemnation leads to deterrance but judges have ruled that to even name these purpetrators is cruel and unusual punishment. There is no recourse naturally for the victims. 13 to 15 year olds DO have knowledge of what they can get into - witness how adept they are at the most sophisticated computer games that we as adults can't even comprehend. And also at that age, many have very deep conversations with friends. I don't know any of my group of friends who were not aware of what consituted a crime or not in our youth. Do you?
  40. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    In a related issue yesterday, the court struck down a provision that requires young offenders, after the imposition of an adult sentence, to demonstrate why they should remain entitled to the continued protection of a publication ban of their identities.

    "Lifting a ban on publication makes the young person vulnerable to greater psychological and social stress," Judge Abella said.

    In the last paragraph of the story, I completely disagee with this one. This is actually a large part of the problem and public exposure and denunciation would help rather than hinder. Knowing that if you are caught you will be publically embarrassd......
    .
  41. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: The Supreme Court of Canada is just one reason why juvenile crime is so high....
  42. Big Cayman from South Toronto, Canada writes: To continue on my last: "“Studies on *public perceptions* of youth crime suggest that the prevailing views of the public are that youth crime is rising, particularly violent youth crime, and that young offenders are handled too leniently by youth justice courts,” Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein wrote for the four-judge minority. “Studies also suggest that a strong majority of Canadians *think* that the sentences imposed by youth justice courts are either too lenient or much too lenient,” he observed." When reality (the statistics) and perception are not congruent then there exists perpetuated ignorance so you owe it to yourselves to be informed on the subject matter at hand unless you enjoy being sucker or a sheep, you should start with reading DA Andrews and J Bonta. Having graduated in the field of criminology and criminal justice policy, as well as having worked for an organization 'in the system' dealing with criminal and marginalized youth I can tell you that as much as one needs to put responsibility on the offending youth, bad parenting is more blameworthy, whether you want to hear that or not. Excellent decision from the Supreme Court. It's easy to tell the thick headed posts from the the more intellingent posts whichever side of the argument one falls on: When people use platitudes like 'Activist Judges' or 'Judge-made law' they have no idea what they are talking about.
  43. Big Cayman from South Toronto, Canada writes: BTW Carriere, how are you doing? Have a happy Victoria Day weekend.
  44. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Big Cayman from South Toronto, Canada writes: BTW Carriere, how are you doing? Have a happy Victoria Day weekend

    Afternoon BC: Tks. Pouring today in my neck of the woods.Hope you and family are well. Enjoyed your posts!
    .
  45. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Parenting is important. But I wonder - how good a job of parenting can be done when both parents have to work? Frequently very long hours. And then there's the issue of multiple jobs for those at the low end of the payscale. maybe we should be looking at the corporate /business end of the issue. Especially in light of the salary that the boys at the top end get, compared to everyone else.
  46. HRC - thought police from Canada writes: Nothing about these activist judges surprises me anymore. At 16, if you are old enough to have a drivers license and control a vehicle that can seriously maime or kill people then you should be old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of your actions.
  47. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Missy Robertson: You're wrong. Young offenders have always been treated differently than adults in the English legal system, including during the reign of King George III.

    In the 1760s, when George was on the throne, Justice William Blackstone wrote: "During the other half of childhood, from ten and a half to fourteen, they were indeed punishable, if found to be doli capaces, or capable of mischief; but with many mitigations, and not with the utmost rigor of the law."

    In the English system, it is the intent that is the crime. For centuries, judges have pondered accuseds' capability of forming intent, and they have always recognized that a young person is less capable of forming intent than is an adult.
  48. gordon davies from Victoria B.C., Canada writes: ''O '' come on now , if you don't know right from wrong by 10 or younger, you should be in a mental institution as a hopeless slug. Too many of the youth of to-day know they can get away with most anything , playing the age card to get out-of jail free.
  49. Anne Peterson from Canada writes: Martha, read my whole post. I suggested we study how they do it in Europe. No one is let off and their methods work. You could find info about it on the internet or the library maybe. Are we so focussed on punishment we don't want to try what works.

    Some people really, really like punishment, don't they.

    Part of what prevents youth crime is that they are raised in good communities and adults like you and me are responsible for that.

    Looking closely at the brain shows they DON'T know the difference between right and wrong all the time. Study up people.
  50. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Those who demand adult sentencing for fourteen-year-olds and imprisonment with adult criminals should perhaps reflect on the mercies shown to them at that age by their elders. But then again, perhaps those people did not receive mercy when they were young, and now want to inflict that same harshness on today's youth.

    Young people should be punished and disciplined for their crimes, but they shouldn't be thrown on the trash-heap of humanity or made into worse criminals by a revenge-oriented legal and judicial system.
  51. Mr. Perfect from Canada writes: They should repeal the Young Offenders Act and re-issue as the Criminal Act.
    "Young Offenders should have their names published.
  52. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    My Fellow Canadians,

    If you witness youth crime, just take the law into your own hands, and dispense summary justice then and there, as the people of Camrose Alberta have done.

    They defied the law and posted the names of those kids who microwaved the cat because of their just anger.

    And nothing happened. Except the police trying to get the names removed from wherever they were posted, and saying people might be charged.

    There is something really wrong with a set of laws that threaten to go after law-biding people instead of the original perpetrators.

    The good part is that Canadians are now speaking up and making their voices heard about things like this.

    Until now I had never heard of Rosalie Abella, but its clear this woman is no friend of the people of Canada.

    So yeah, just take the law into your own hands if your interests are threatened, because things have just gone nuts around here.

    The people of Alberta seem to think much more clearly than the people in Toronto in particular.
  53. Martha K from Canada writes: Anne Peterson from Canada writes: Martha, read my whole post. I suggested we study how they do it in Europe. No one is let off and their methods work. You could find info about it on the internet or the library maybe. Are we so focussed on punishment we don't want to try what works. Some people really, really like punishment, don't they. "

    Yes some people do like punishment Anne, but not me. I like deterance. I never spanked my child and I don't believe in corporal or mental punishments. But what do you do when young offenders repeatedly go on a rampage, many knowing they will not be critically detained or put in jail? It happens repeatedly.

    I will agree with you wholeheartedly that we should be studying alternative methods and if any European countries have reduced their juvenile crime rates through intensive programs, then we should adopt them. But that isn't happening is it? Instead, our youth who commit these heinous crimes often get off and are rarely rehabilitated since judges deem rehabilitation or being away from one's parents and family and friends, a crime unto itself. What a shame.

    Otherwise, I do wish we had the political will to examine other countries' methods.
  54. Charles Brown from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: ONE GOOD REASON TO RID THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA OF THESE IDIOTS (JUDGES).
  55. been there from Toronto, Canada writes: The right wing blog machine is on overdrive on this holiday weekend with their favourite bogeyman and punching bag -- activist elitist bleeding heart liberal judges!

    Take a holiday and chill!

    The hysteria, along with the court-minority arguments, simply don't hold water.

    The ruling says simply this: if the crime is heinous enough, motive vicious and premeditated enough, then the Crown should have no problems proving that adult sentencing is necessary, and it will be granted.

    But it simply should not be automatic. That is a very reasonable ruling.

    Now, if you espouse the attitude that the there should be no concept of Young Offenders in the first place, and that they should be all be drawn and quartered in public along with the adults, and that everything should be done to undermine the concept of Young Offenders including the use of automatic sentencing, then you will be irked by it. So be it.

    If you are really worked up about this, then scrap the entire concept of Young Offenders and place no age limits on any punishment. But you know, along with this Conservative government, that this is an extremist view that will not pass -- most reasonable people, backed up by scientific evidence, agree that children do not have the full mental capacity and maturity as adults and therefore should be treated differently.

    As for the perception that youth crime going up, and the implication that automatic adult sentencing of youths will lead to greater deterrence, this is total nonsense. Even with automatic sentencing, it was limited to heinous crimes in the first place -- the vast majority of youth crimes don't fall into that category, and the option is still there after this ruling for adult sentencing for the heinous crimes.

    Nothing is changed. This is a big fuss over nothing.
  56. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    The burden of proof is on the accuser.

    Period.

    Of course, right-wing nutjobs are too stupid to realize that.
  57. Kathleen Degelder from Tacomawashington, Canada writes: Sanjay Singh: Good post.
  58. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: I am concerned that this decision was so close. Surely the dissenting judges are aware that automatically exposing early teenagers to adult sentencing and many years of incarceration with hardened adult criminals would be extraordinarily cruel--and pointless, other than revenge.

    I am afraid that if Prime Minister Harper, Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, and people like Vic Toews have any kind of influence on our judiciary, that the handling of crime in Canada will regress to a fearful and primitive vengefulness. I don't want angry, mean-spirited, self-righteous people deciding the country's laws and who will enforce and administer them.
  59. Anne Peterson from Canada writes: Good heavens Martha haven't you read that juvenile crimes have dropped.
  60. Martha K from Canada writes: Anne Peterson from Canada writes: Good heavens Martha haven't you read that juvenile crimes have dropped. "

    I didn't think my post merited a condescending "good heavens" from you Anne, considering I was trying to be diplomatic in agreeing with part of your argument.

    Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that juvenile crimes have dropped - the statistics are inconsistent at best and I've yet to see a definitive one saying that indeed they have dropped. I've seen those that say they have risen.
  61. Kathleen Degelder from Tacomawashington, Canada writes: Nick Wright: Tell that to the "victims of Crime".
  62. The Bubble from Canada writes: It's a wise decision. Puts the government on a hotter seat over Khadr. I'm shocked at how wise this is. The Hang em High crowd will just have to continue salivating waiting for the death penalty to come back. Bloodimindedness.
  63. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Kathleen Degelder: Please tell us what good it does the victim of, let's say a stabbing, if the fourteen-year-old perpetrator is sent to an adult penitentiary for five years, to be at the tender mercies of rapists, child molesters, murderers, thieves, con artists, former newspaper barons, and other positive elder guides and examples.

    The victim can be sure of one thing, the nineteen-year-old who comes out of prison (assuming he doesn't contract HIV/AIDS from being raped) is far more likely to be a lot further down path of adult criminality than when he went in. Vengefulness always backfires. I think we've learned that.
  64. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: Judge Abella needs a reality check; she needs to come down from her Trudeauesque world of rose-tinted glasses. That world was oh so nice thirty years ago. Irrelevant now.

    My solution is to set up a "young offenders" camp in the Far North, on an island so there is no need for fences or anything else that might psychologically scar the little dears. Have the little guys and girls get up at 5 am every day and work and study till 9 pm when it would be lights out. Each time one of the youths breaks a rule, another month is added to their sentence.
  65. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: She said it simply puts the onus on the Crown – “where it belongs” – to justify an adult sentence.
    ****************************************************

    Just what is the problem? I suspect that here was a political motive behind the framing and passing of this act. I knew even before I went to the comments that the usual suspects would all have their knickers in a twist over this. If the crown can justify an adult sentence the kid will get it in the neck, as he/she ought. We are going to have the usual inane comments from the knuckle-draggers.LOL.
    CYMRO
  66. Thor Stites from Canada writes: There are a few misconceptions abound:

    Adult sentencing or not, young offenders do not do time in adult prisons until they are adults.

    This was not the passing of an act or an amendment to an act, but a Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

    In my humble opinion it was a good ruling. The responsibility should be on the crown to prove that the YO should be tried as an adult. I was actually quite surprised to learn that it was the other way around. I think when you look at the system as a rehabilitation system as opposed to a revenge system it makes perfect sense.
  67. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: "Cheryl Milne, a lawyer who made legal arguments in the case on behalf of Justice for Children and Youth, said the fatal flaw in the provision was that it catered to society's desire for retribution without having any actual impact on rehabilitation or reducing youth crime."

    The three factors of sentencing: rehabilitation, public safety and retribution have been reduced to the last two for decades.

    We do not even have rehabilitation for drug addicts but consider it good public policy to provide drugs and a safe injection site which simply warehouses the people just as we warehouse criminals.

    Work camps, trades training, institutional farms all went down the flusher with the rights movement of the 1970's and so did positive reinforcement of work skills and social integration.

    The permanent treadmill of stigmatized and disfunctional people is the result of maximum rights, soft law and irresponsible social policy hiding behind "humanitarian" accommodation.

    Thirty years ago "D.B." would be cutting bush in a work camp building roads, trails and camp sites in a provincial park. Today, he's watching TV and waiting for the next visit with his lawyer.
  68. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: in other news, kids are still trying to run down cops in Winnipeg
    maybe they need a hug
  69. Daniel Cunningham from Victoria, writes: And maybe the right wing dolts who keep saying the sky is falling the sky is falling should actually read the decision. It doesn't say young offenders can't be tried as adults - it just says that the crown has to justify their reasoning. I sincerely hope the ConBorgs get their &sses booted out of parliament before they try any more brilliantly stupid crime legislation.
  70. Charles Brown from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: ANYONE OLD ENOUGH TO KILL OR COMMIT A SERIOUS CRIME SHOULD BE MAN ENOUGH TO FACE THE MUSIC. PERIOD!!!
  71. harry carnie from Northern, B.C, Canada writes: edwardo plazinski..........there is little doubt there are those among us who commit the most horrendous crimes..AND SHOULD BE REMOVED PERMANENTLY
    For the safety of society. (even if the criminal is a "tender age")

    The Looney Liberals ignore this fact, and focus piously on the "rights of the accused"..THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO COMPASSION FOR THE VICTIMS
    or worse yet PROTECTING SOCIETY from suffering more victims.
    It is not about "revenge or "punishment"...IT IS PROTECTING Society.

    Mary Wells...you have that right.

    Charles Brown....Right! Punishment to fit the crime..and responsibility for one`s actions
    A 12 year old knows the basics in what is right or wrong!

    Ed Long...You hit on the MAIN reason our justice system is SO screwed up.
  72. Vern McPherson from writes:
    A good place to begin thinking on this issue is to ask why young people increasingly committ crimes ?

    And never mind the reason that they somehow know they can get away with it because of their age. That is not the reason. That is a consequence maybe ........... a corollary to the commisson of crimes - but not the true motivation......

    But why are young people comitting such violent crimes and why do they become involved in criminal/violent behavior ? What has changed form the says when the worst a kid might do is bust a window playing ball or something ?? Break into a canteen and steal candy etc ......... ?????? Thoughts anyone ?
  73. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Vern McPherson: Morning VERNIE:

    You write," But why are young people comitting such violent crimes and why do they become involved in criminal/violent behavior ? What has changed form the says when the worst a kid might do is bust a window playing ball or something ??

    Isn't that the $64,000 question?

    As mentioned way back in the thread, " There is no doubt that the nuclear family has broken down, that there are questionable roadblocks to child discipline, that the teaching of morality and ethics, right from wrong, are not what they used to be either on the home front or the school front...basically stated, much has changed in the past decade or more, and the education of basic moral principles is left wanting on all fronts.

    VERNIE, I also wonder what type of personal research has been done concerning the violent crime issues of the young-meaning extensive interviews with the offender, his/her parents, other "family" members, and the people they are "hanging out" with. What is/are the common denominators (drugs?..gang membership..?) I would also like to know if these youngsters know/understand the weak repercussions of their actions or are they unaware.
  74. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Fortunately, people who think in mindlessly simplistic slogans have so far been unable to make it into positions of senior responsibility in our justice system.

    Unfortunately, the Harper regime is determined to change all that, and no doubt regards this ruling as a defeat.

    A more intelligent course for any government would be to remove the rationale that reactionaries use to support their hateful views; this includes making the laws for young offenders clearer and stricter. It is uncompassionate to be too lenient with young people when they break the law; they need to understand that there are boundaries (for their own and everyone else's good) and predictable consequences for violating them.

    On the hard end, punishments should sting and appear inevitable to would-be lawbreakers; on the soft end, there should be a path to improving or changing behaviour and attitudes.

    You don't protect society by sending young people to criminal training school (aka adult prisons) for long periods of study, indoctrination and hardening.
  75. Globe Loves Conservatives from Canada writes:
    Liberals are all hypocrites. Cant punish anyone keep murderers alive but can kill unborn innocent moving babies. Take your root causes and shovem.Punishment and get scum off the streets works.Liberals are the cause of all of the social problems and diseases.Liberals are scum.
  76. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Nick Wright from Halifax: Morning Nick. Beautiful day out there!

    Interesting post! You plot out some good middle ground. The statement that nails it, " It is uncompassionate to be too lenient with young people when they break the law.."

    There is nothing learned without at least some serious consequences always keeping in mind that there is a difference between breaking a window and armed murder.

    I still believe the following: Public Denunciation hopefully leading to Deterence which we don't have now for some reason, Incapacitation where necessary, Rehabilitation, and clearly Restitution to the victims

    I also concur with you that the CPC is wrong on this issue!
    .
  77. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Good morning, Mr. Carriere: A beautiful day in NS indeed--all the more so because we were promised rain all weekend!

    I think you and Vern are pointing to the correct emphasis for the long term; trying to deal with people after the damage is done is a sign of a society with some of its priorities mixed up. As is said: if something is good in the beginning, it has a fighting chance of being good in the middle and good in the end.

    I think the biggest problem is that if children don't know who they are when they enter puberty, they will at best be unhappy, and at worst self-destructive or anti-social in any number of ways, including criminality (I feel that, currently, bodily mutilation--exaggerated piercing and tattooing--and gang behaviour are strong early symptoms of people not knowing who they are).

    Children are basically good, in the sense that if they grow up knowing who they are and are relatively comfortable (i.e., relaxed) in their skins, they won't develop compulsive extreme behaviour. I'm not talking about the hyper-manipulative and anxiety-producing "self-esteem" movement, or any system of social or religious indoctrination--although a positive religious training can be invaluable; I'm talking about schools and parents helping children to find out who they are, as they are. They don't need to be "moulded" into something they are not, or to have their elders' fears and insecurities drilled into them.

    Part of learning who you are is encountering real and unambiguous boundaries, and the consequences of transgressing them. We are, after all, raising children to deal with the real world, which deals harshly with wildness and anti-social behaviour. Saying No and meaning it is profoundly compassionate, in my view.
  78. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Nick Wright from Halifax,; Hi again Nick-wonderful post!

    Continuing on your track of thought, perhaps many of the disciplinary tools of years gone by have been completely eliminated.

    I truly understand there were abuses of the young concerning corporal discipline, yet quite possibly the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

    I can remember when a slap on the rear end sent a message, as was a hand stinging strap in school that left no marks but certainly passed another messsage.

    Of course this is a very slippery slope, but both parents and teachers are almost helpless in meating out any form of appropriate punishment at an early age. Yes, dialogue is always the best way, if and when it works, but a small slap or spending a few hours in your room as punishment thinking about what you did wrong, was in most cases beneficial.

    Perhaps a child also learned that there would be "consequences" in the years to follow if you broke the rules of society. Today, teenagers have NO reference point of punishment to crime.

    At the end of the day, unfortunately in today's world, the time for love and teaching has become almost non-existent in several cases.
    .
  79. Vern McPherson from writes:
    carriere lots of truth I can agree with in what you say. But the YCJA has been successful. Messing with it is foolhardy.
  80. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Vern McPherson from writes:....... But the YCJA has been successful. Messing with it is foolhardy

    VERNIE: Perhaps in several cases it has been successful, but it does need some "messing with" or tweaking, but NOT the way the CPC wants it-and certainly NOT the reverse onus issue it was sponsoring.
    .
  81. john brett from Canada writes: Vern McPherson you wrote " But the YCJA has been successful. Messing with it is foolhardy."

    Please let me know how this has been successful, and for who? The young criminal or their victims?

    The charter (and the YCJA for that matter) has turned common sense upside down. The rights of the victim are ignored... the rights of the perpetrator are championed.

    We are raising a entire generation of youth who are taught that they are not responsible for their own actions.
  82. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: A lot of comments.

    Are we now dealing with the generation that has never heard "no"?

    Are these the children of a society that doesn't establish boundaries, positive reinforcement and consequences?

    Once the act is done ... court, social workers, psychologists, lawyers, judges ... it's over.
  83. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Mr. Carriere: Forms of discipline and punishment vary from culture to culture, as is natural. It seems that if no harm is done, and punishment of whatever type is momentary and done in a general atmosphere of loving kindness (i.e., the slap on the bum doesn't reinforce an insecure child's sense that he isn't loved), the child's natural reslience--and intelligence--will make him more likely to benefit from the disicpline--no matter how much he may howl in protest at the time!

    I think parents' fear of inflicting pain--of any kind--has become a real obstacle to raising children sanely, along with indifference. I know parents who are completely intimidated by popular magazine, book and television-show "experts" bombarding them with conflicting, confusing, and downright nonsensical warnings on how they are "harming" their children psychologically. The children sense their parents' fear and hesitation, and learn to manipulate it very skilfully.

    There is another factor that pertains more to our legal system. Young people become cynical about the law when they see senior members of government, business and the professions (including sports) getting away with illegal and blatantly unethical behaviour. I remember in my teenage years feeling outrage most of the time at the injustice I saw around me.

    In the most enlightened Chinese dynasties, the severest penalties were reserved for those highest in government, the military and the professions--and they had no slick, highly paid lawyers to get them off on technicalities when they were plainly guilty, or cronies who would reinstate them to positions of power to the outrage of ordinary people.

    In doling out our most severe punishments to the powerless, unmoneyed and least educated, we have our priorities upside down. No wonder contempt for the law is so widespread.
  84. Vern McPherson from writes: Carrierre there was an article in Friday's Globe on precisely that subject. I think it's called this: "Leave Yonge-offenders law alone, Ottawa told" Have you seen that story ?? There were stats quoted that appear to be important evidence that the law is successful overall. But I do agree a little tweaking here and there is desireable although the crazy CPC's 'hammer' approach is certainly not justified. Youth crime is essentially a social problem anyway. Expansion of programs (including more and more meaningful community service and real consequenses relative to paying for damnage and hurt in real dollars), are some of the tweaks I think would add to the success of the law. Incarcerating youth blanket-style is not a viable solution. Of course in cases of serious lawbreaking judges and crowns already have the power to incarcerate and apply adult sentences. That part hasn't changed. But specific emphasis should be placed on repeaters and bail/conditions violaters and there certainly are lots of them. Someone somewhere must take responsibility for these cases and make corrections ...... There was also an article in the G&M or the Post this week on the US failures in the war on drugs and incareration. Very interesting in light of the CPC's approach to crime - especially in the face of stats that indicate crime is declining here .......... . Sorry I don't have a reference readily available.
  85. Vern McPherson from writes: john brett from Canada writes: Vern McPherson you wrote " But the YCJA has been successful. Messing with it is foolhardy." Please let me know how this has been successful, and for who? The young criminal or their victims? The charter (and the YCJA for that matter) has