Ycja Fair And Equitable

To what extent is the YCJA fair and equitable to youth?

Established on April 1, 2003, the Young Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) was created to replace the Young Offenders Act (YOA). Along with replacing the YOA, the YCJA was created to be fair and equitable to youth. Fair and equitable means for everyone to receive the same punishment if the same crime was committed, regardless of gender, race or, to a certain extent, age. If two people are near the same age and have committed the same crime, they should be punished in almost the same way, regarding other factors as well. Many people believe that the YCJA is fair and equitable but that is not the case. Maturity is a factor that does affect the consequence(s) given to the offender but the YCJA
Aboriginal youth are jailed at younger ages and for longer periods of time than non-Aboriginal youth (5). Is this what society has now decided to be fair and equitable? Does no one see this fault in the YCJA? If the YCJA was actually fair and equitable, Aboriginal youth would not be punished in such a way. Aboriginals are discriminated against, so many Aboriginals have been missing, yet it is not considered a big deal. As a multicultural country, all of the cultures should be considered equal, for the culture of Aboriginals, it does not seem to be that way. In 2013, 21.3% of all federally incarcerated Aboriginal offenders were 25 years of age or younger as compared to 13.6% of non-Aboriginals (7) Because Aboriginal youth that are sentenced are young and serve longer periods of time, there is a 7.7% difference between these numbers, which is a rather large difference. By giving Aboriginal youth longer sentences in jail and sending them to jail at younger ages, it shows youth who contribute to the future of this country that they not trusted, it shows them they are not considered equal. If the YCJA wanted to be more fair and equal to the Aboriginals, it should let the elders, who have better morals for dealing with their own youth, decide what is to happen to that person. The elders are from the same culture, can help make the youth feel welcome and attempt to regain balance in
Although the way the YCJA addresses the crimes is rather intelligent, the punishments given do not reflect this intelligence. Looking at the circumstances, attitude and history of the person and the seriousness of the crime is an effective way to start to figure out the punishment but then giving someone a punishment like community service or paying back the victim, is not effective. These punishments give youth the belief that committing a crime will lead to a mild punishment, although currently committing a crime will lead to a mild punishment. People can say the YCJA is only there for intimidation but in some cases, the YCJA cannot even provide the intimidation of punishment. How is it fair that two Alberta teens were given only one year probation, one hundred hours of community service and a ban on pet ownership when they had broken into someone’s house, smashed guitars and a television, vandalised the house and microwaved a cat for ten minutes while it screamed in pain as it was being cooked to death? (1) They were given no jail time just a mild punishment and for some reason that punishment was considered reasonable? Is this what is now considered fair and equitable? Is this little punishment against animal cruelty fair and equitable? Well, according to the YCJA, it is. If a teenager can commit an adult like