BRIEF: YOUNG ADULTS AND THE DEFINITION OF YOUTH WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The JDA adopted the ideology that when a young person would come in contact with the law, the state should act with the best interest of the child in mind while taking on the metaphorical role of a “parent of the country.”22 Although an improvement from the previous system, under the JDA, young offenders were not being rehabilitated, sentences were not consistent, and racialized23 groups were seen. [...] In an attempt to address these issues, the Young Offenders Act (YOA) replaced the JDA on April 1st, 1984.24 The YOA aimed to enhance the legal rights given to young people in conflict with the law as the JDA was not in compliance with the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) which was enacted in 1982, particularly Section 15. [...] One of the notable differences between the YOA and the YCJA, is that the YCJA sets out within the preamble and the declaration of principles (section 3 of the YCJA) the reasoning and principles behind having a separate system for youth. [...] The following is a non-exhaustive list of principles pulled from section 3 of the YCJA which highlight the legislation’s main principles and objectives: ● The youth criminal justice system sets out to protect the public by: o holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the offence and the young person’s degree of responsibility; o promoting rehabilitation and reint. [...] When interviewed about involvement in both the youth and adult criminal justice systems for the project Missed Opportunities: The Experience of Young Adults Incarcerated in Federal Penitentiaries by the Office of the Correctional Investigator and Ontario Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, the majority of young adults indicated that there was immense support in the youth crim.