In Part I we examine the different views that have been articulated in the social science literature for and against parental responsibility laws, along with arguments that have been made about why such laws have been enacted in an increasing number of Western countries in recent years. One unexpected finding of our literature survey is the relatively sparse attention given to the issue of parental responsibility for youth crime in legal and criminological literature compared to the attention it receives in the media and popular-public culture. Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about parental responsibility, the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. This comparative analysis of Australian and. In addition, as a starting point for needed cross-jurisdictional research, we focus on different approaches that have been taken to making parents responsible for youth crime in Australia and Canada. In this article we survey relevant international literature on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders. Recommendations for youth correctional practice are offered. Findings suggest that the criminality of sentenced youth has changed with the new legislation, as well as how COs do their job-some feeling that the legislation is at odds with their occupational responsibility and negatively impacting their ability to “do the job”. Based on 24 in-depth interviews, we examine the most perceptible changes COs employed in Canadian youth closed-custody facilities encountered, as a result of the legislative movement from the YOA to the YCJA. assessed how correctional officers working with youth (COs) interpret and experience “accountability” and “meaningful consequences” in their day-to-day work. However, several important differences remain, including the following: (1) the statement of purpose of sentencing in youth justice courts lays more emphasis on rehabilitation (2) although the utilitarian sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, and incapacitation are relevant to the sentencing of adults, they are not stated objectives for sentencing juveniles (3) while important, proportionality plays a lesser role in the sentencing of juvenile offenders, although the influence of the principle will increase with the age of the young person (4) courts should resort to the incarceration of the offender less often when sentencing juvenile offenders (5) when considering the principle of parity in sentencing, the frame of reference for youth courts should be the region in which the individual is being sentenced there is no such statutory direction at the adult level.Ĭanada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) heralded many changes in the treatment of youth within the justice system, particularly in regard to holding youth “accountable” and the use of “meaningful consequences.” Under the former Young Offenders Act (YOA) far more youth were given custodial sentences, while under the YCJA youth custody rates have plummeted. It is clear that a central goal of the act is to harmonize sentencing at the adult and youth court levels. As well, a number of normative issues raised by the YCJA are addressed. This brief article reviews the principal sentencing provisions of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, and explores their relationship to sentencing at the adult court level.

The last bastion 2018