Youth Justice Sociology Assignment Project
|Topic||Youth Justice Sociology Assignment Project|
This paper focus on the topic of Canadian youth justice issue, and is a further paper of “Proposal” file in the attachments. This paper contains 2 parts, essay and OP-ED. OP-ED is based on the essay. Essay should be 6 pages or around 1500 words, and OP-ED should be around 600 words, which is about a page. Please separate essay part and OP-ED part clearly. The whole paper is based on the “Proposal ” file in the attachment and in the attached file “Essay instructions”, there are all the instructions for this paper (from page 3 to 4) and instructions for the proposal (page 1 to 2) are also in the file so that you can get a better look at the whole paper.
The format of the paper should be ASA. There is no maximum number of sources that you can use, but just make sure you have at least 2 of the sources that are peer reviewed journal articles. If you have any questions just let me know. Thank you.
The Super Court and the Closure of Jarvis Youth Court
The intention of closing Jarvis Youth Court and merging both adult and youth courts in the new Toronto mega courthousewas communicated by the attorney general of Ontario. According to Johnson, Lebold, and Elam (2014), the new courthouse will have specialized youth courts, holding areas that will have direct access to the courtrooms, and special youth support services. The authors also note that decision was reached after great consultations within major justice participants including the judiciary and respective social and community service organizations that deal with youth issues. The decision to centralize the courts was based on the claims of inefficiencies in maintaining separate courthouses.
However, the decision means that children as young as 12 to 18 years will appear in the same courthouse as adults hence heightening vulnerability and lowering the effects of rehabilitation. This is because adolescents will see themselves as criminals even though their crimes are minor low-level offenses that occur in their age. Exposing children to adult criminals is risky since they will be vulnerable to serious violent and gag formations as noted by Johnson, Lebold, and Elam (2014). This will be easier since adolescents will be lured in and taken advantage of by the adults to execute their criminal intentions. According to Ricciardelli et al., (2017), Jarvis Youth Court was opened in 1957 to house family courts, youth courts, and other children support services such as rehabilitation. For this reason, the courthouse was designed to be more of a clinic than a court. This was to ensure a child-centered approach to youth justice so that the factors that led children into unlawful issues can be dealt with in a sensitive way. The decision was because adolescents deserved appropriate treatment different from those of adults. The Jarvis Youth Court is a reflection of Canada’s goals of youth justice legislation that is aimed to address vulnerability adolescents are exposed to as well as offering crucial rehabilitation services.
Putting children in the same courthouse as adults is risky and raises safety concerns because it will not be possible to address their basic requirements sensitively when it comes to solving their unlawful issues and, therefore, it will be appropriate to treat adolescents in separate specialized youth courts.
This issue is addressed to the judiciary, council, and community and social service organizations among the participants who came up with the decision of merging adult courts and youth courts under the same roof. Additionally, all individuals should understand that children’s cases are addressed in a different approach from those of adults as Johnson, Lebold, and Elam, (2014) noted. The proposal submission will be published in areas of public domain and in the websites of the respective participants as well as Canada’s legislature. This will explain to all participants the reason why it is impossible for courts and legal services to address the underlying issues that lead adolescents into conflict with the law and offer rehabilitation services solely.
Therefore, this will give them an insight into how the system needs to offer separate and specialized treatment to the youths in youth courts according to Ricciardelli et al. (2017). The youth justice legislation of Canada is focused on addressing the heightened vulnerability among the youths as well as offering rehabilitation services. Merging courthouses will offer less as far as the original goals are concerned and therefore the participants should not just focus on efficiency but consider the risks that are associated with the decision. The youth governing strategy is to treat youths sensitively and appropriately when handling their cases. This ensures that their future is safe by eliminating all the risks and vulnerabilities that may come along the process. Therefore, the youth justice system should properly treat children in a safer environment both legally and socially.
Johnson, Lee M., Simon Le bold, and Peter Elam. 2014. “Use of Research Evidence by Juvenile Justice and Youth Service Professionals.”Criminal Justice Policy Review, [online] 27(4): 402-419.http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/use_of_research_evidence_by_criminal_justice_professionals_johnson.pdf
Ricciardelli, Rose, Heyley Crichton, Liam Swiss, Dale Spencer, and Michael Adorjan. 2017. “From Knowledge to Action? The Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Use of Extrajudicial Measures in Youth Policing.”Police Practice and Research, [online] 18(6): 599-611. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15614263.2017.1363971