The Role of Community in Youth Justice in Canada - Essay Example

? Role of community in youth justice in Canada Over the last two decades, Canada has raised the chances and the possibilities for the community to become involved in the treatment of youthful offenders. In Canada, there has been a reasonable growth in the quality of opportunities for the community to get involved in crime prevention and the exploration of problem oriented policies. Youthful-crime prevention has been taken up by non-governmental sector in the country (Alvi, 2011). This sector is now playing a prominent role in the juvenile crime prevention. This includes victim assistance, treatment, supervision and delivery of assistance. The emergence of community justice movement has been noted by the law commission of Canada. Participatory justice is not particularly common in Canada, but it refers to a collection of community based strategies to facilitate the involvement of the community in responding to youthful offenders (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). The community acts autonomously from the Canadian criminal justice system (Kratcoski, 2012). This has come about because of disillusionment with the formal criminal justice institutions or the established system. This has led to an effort to experiment and innovate with an aim improve the situation. The Canadian Youth Justice Act (CYJA) motivates people to use the provided laws to keep the young offenders from being absorbed into the official or formal justice systems of the juveniles (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). The provisions of the Canadian youth criminal justice act encourage youth justice officials to make use of what is known as extrajudicial measures (Kratcoski, 2012). These are the measures used upon all the juvenile offenders who are involved in serious crimes (Doob, 2004). The objectives of such extrajudicial measures have also been stipulated in the Act. The objectives include: to encourage the community, family and the victim to get involved in the process. The victim is also provided with the opportunity to take part in the decision making process. The other objective is to repair the damage caused to both the community and the victim. According to Alvi, the final objective is to make sure that the extrajudicial steps used in the process are in proportion to the gravity of the crime done (Kratcoski, 2012). Prosecutors and the police are encouraged to use the pre-charge and post-charge diversionary techniques under the Canadian youth criminal justice act (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). Under the YCJA, the police and prosecutors are allowed to issue warnings, give police cautions, give police referrals to young persons and take no further actions (Alvi, 2011). All this is done to community agencies or programs to assist the juvenile offenders not to commit crimes (Kratcoski, 2012). According to Kratcoski, the police referrals are to a wide range dealing with community resources, counseling agencies and programs. The Canadian youth justice act suggests that police should consider referrals to troubled youths (Doob, 2004). The act states that the youthful offenders should be referred to community programs. This provision tends to be underutilized. Police community programs and partnerships need to be strengthened and enhanced (Doob, 2004). There needs to be tools that shall enhance such police referrals. The police has the training and the capability to prevent the youths from walking down the criminal and offensive pathways (Kratcoski, 2012). The police is considered to be among the first respondents (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). In order to do this effectively, the police need to access community resources. Communities are encouraged to come up with incentives that shall enhance community/citizen partnership and participation in the juvenile justice system through community services and programs touching on mental health and drug addiction services (Strang & Braithwaite, 2002). According to Strang and Braithwaite, these challenges are known to target the youth exclusively. A variety of chances and opportunities are provided for youthful justice personnel to divert youth from the process of criminal justice (Doob, 2004). This entails the community or the family group conferences to influence the decision making process of youthful offenders (Kratcoski, 2012). According to the Act, a conference is defined as a group of people who come together with an aim of giving advice to the police, judge prosecutors or youth workers (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). This advice is intended to assist in the decision making process under the Act. The entire aim of this initiative is inform the community that it has a role to play when it comes to dealing with youthful offenders (Doob, 2004). Rather than playing a passive role, the law provides that the community should be of the forefront in averting crimes from youths through participating in the decision making process (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). In case a young offender has taken part in a crime, the community has a role still. This role is to counsel and establish the motive and inspiration behind the crime before the formal justice criminal system comes to force (Kratcoski, 2012). In doing this, community appreciates the efforts of the government in fighting crime (Alvi, 2011). Conferences of this nature become a forum for the youth’s parents, victims, professional experts and community agency personnel to meet. According to Kratcoski (2012), these conferences have the power to make strong recommendations about the extrajudicial measures to be taken. These measures must be in proportion to the degree of the offence committed (Doob, 2004). The conference groups have the ability to recommend the conditions that are necessary for the release of youthful offenders from pretrial detentions (Kratcoski, 2012). The conference groups have the mandate to deliberate on the sentences issued to the youthful offenders and plans on how to reintegrate the juveniles. Once they have been set free from custody, then they are prepared to return in to the social life and into their families. The Youth Criminal Justice Act legislative setup and conferences take two forms. The first form is the restorative nature which tends to focus on the extent of harm caused by the youth’s offense to the community and the victim. The other form of the conferences is professional case conferences (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). The latter focuses on the developing and implementing the initiatives and strategies needed to address the needs of the young offenders. Furthermore, this conference is useful in determining the community services when it comes to assisting a youth offender (Alvi, 2011). One of the major ways of involving the community in youth justice is embracing the circle sentencing (Doob, 2004). Circle sentencing is entrenched at the heart of participatory justice. In this case, members of the community become directly involved in responding to incidents of social and criminal disorders. This happens through the facilitation from Community Justice Committee (CJC). This initiative includes participation from justice agencies (Kratcoski, 2012). Members of the forum look for ways to respond to community related conflict. Cases referred to this committee are from police, judges, schools and victims (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). The community plays a crucial role in liaising with community organizations and criminal justice agencies and other communal stakeholders. The process of circle sentencing is community specific. This means that it may vary from one community to another (Doob, 2004). This initiative depends heavily on community volunteers for its success (Kratcoski, 2012). In situations involving juvenile offenders directly, the committee mobilizes the community to support the youth offender and the victim through the entire process (Alvi, 2011). This is through following the circle process strictly. Restorative programs are known to offer diversionary measures and alternatives to steps that would deprive the youthful offenders their rights and liberties (Doob, 2004). They have a worthwhile, educational value. Many programs do offer exceptional opportunities to develop a community of care around the youthful offenders who are in conflict with the law. In Canada, it is easy to garner public support for restorative justice. A circle of accountability and support is a community integration initiative program that is known to seek the deduction of risk of reoffending with regard to youthful sex offenders. These are offenders who are reentering the community or society after the expiry date of their warrant (Doob, 2004). The circles aim at enhancing public safety through cooperation with victims, treatment professionals, police and neighborhood groups. The program was conceived with an aim of filling in the gap left by the Canadian government policy. They initiate addresses the youthful offenders who have served their entire court sentences and are being released in to the society (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). These young offenders are often released without any form of assistance, counseling or aftercare. It was found out that, in Canada, these youthful offenders are released into the society, but end up failing to get integrated back into the society fully due to inadequate resources and community support (Muncie & Goldson, 2006). According to Muncie & Goldson (2006), these youthful offenders are often without treatment and attract significant attention from the media. In Canada, there is no shortage of chances for the community to become involved in treating or assisting youthful offenders (Muncie & Goldson, 2006). Numerous community groups and volunteers get involved in aiding juvenile offenders annually (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). Some of the programs involved in supporting and helping youthful offenders are workshop and classroom programs (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). Others are religious based like the chaplaincy and recreational activities (Doob, 2004). Some of these events involve the culture and social based events. The invention of restorative justice in Canada lies in a desire to restructure the juvenile system in Canada (Alvi, 2011). The aim is to make the system community focused as opposed to a bureaucratic system. The initiative demands decision making processed, new values, performance objectives and program priorities (Muncie & Goldson, 2006). The restorative justice system helps in ensuring that the youthful offenders make amends with their casualties or victims. It is argued that, the health of a community can be rated as the extent of citizen participation is community decision making processes (Kratcoski, 2012). An effective justice system strengthens the ability and the capacity of the community to respond to crimes by empowering them to handle such cases. Many services dealing with youthful offenders in Canada have become dependent of community assistance and non-governmental organizations (Doob, 2004). This community based effort help in giving rehabilitation and getting youthful offenders get integrated back into society. The commitment to youthful offender treatment and public safety demonstrated by the community based organizations and agencies have considerably enhanced the capability of the youth criminal justice Act and the juvenile justice system to deliver correctional initiatives (Muncie & Goldson, 2006). These initiatives have been helpful in delivering the complex needs of the youthful offender population. The Canadian youth renewal initiative has three cardinal directions. It emphasizes on meaningful consequences holding the youthful offenders accountable (Doob, 2004). The aim is to help the youth understand the full impact of their actions. This also helps them appreciate the harm done to the community and the victims (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). The youth justice system in Canada offers to assist in the integration, and rehabilitation of the juvenile offenders with an aim of ensuring the youthful offenders get the support necessary to prevent recurrence of the crime. The initiative demands that cooperation in the integration of solutions that are focused on youth justice (Muncie & Goldson, 2006). This approach did not have many alternative policies (Doob, 2004). The process of developing communal solutions is still evolving, but it has been rewarding from the launch. This initiative found that, for a lasting solution to be found, the various elements of the criminal justice system dealing with the youth are not enough. The initiative called for involvement of individuals and organizations to use a consolidated approach with an aim of dealing with youthful offenders (Cornwell & McElrea, 2006). The policy has not reflected any racial, gender or status prejudice. The youthful criminal justice system recognizes that social issues and justice are connected inextricably. The punitive approach appeases the public when it comes to the demand to reprimand and retribution. However, it has been observed that it does not do much when it comes to rehabilitating and integrating youthful offenders (Kratcoski, 2012). When punishment is used in the wring ways, it results to negative effects especially to juvenile offenders. Retribution tends to cause the offenders to focus on themselves rather than view the real impact of their actions to victims and the community. Juvenile offenders are a distinctive group who need the society to aid them during the process of changing and rehabilitation. Therefore, increasing the severity of punitive measures among juvenile offenders may be counterproductive. In conclusion, the role of community and non-governmental bodies in dealing with youthful offenders seems to yield positive results is Canada. The policy is highly recommended since it deals with crime from a holistic approach. The community has a crucial role to play when it comes to dispensing justice among juvenile offenders and rehabilitation youthful convicts. The role of the community in youth justice system, in Canada, has been rewarding. The community feeling that it has created avenues to enhancing public safety and changing the attitude of youthful offenders. The involvement of community in Canadian justice system has assisted in making the system transparent and open. This has raised the level of accountability in the Canadian youth justice system which amounts to a positive development. The real impact of community involvement in Canadian justice system needs to be highlighted and documented. Ultimately, criminal justice system is not longer a preserve of the police officers and judges alone. References Alvi, S. (2011). Youth Criminal Justice Policy in Canada: A Critical Introduction (1st ed.). Springer. Cornwell, D. J., & McElrea, F. W. (2006). Criminal Punishment And Restorative Justice: Past, Present And Future Perspectives (1st ed.). Waterside Press. Doob, A. N. (2004). Responding to Youth Crime in Canada (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. Kratcoski, P. C. (2012). Juvenile Justice Administration (1st ed.). CRC Press. Muncie, J., & Goldson, B. (2006). Comparative Youth Justice (1st ed.). Pine Forge Press. Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative Justice and Family Violence (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. Read More