The Act goes into force April 1, 2003
New: December 2010: Enter Your Comments and Opinion Respecting the YCJA
Debate for January 2003
``young person'' means a person who is or, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be twelve years old or older, but less than sixteen years old and, if the context requires, includes any person who is charged under this Act with having committed an offence while he or she was a young person or who is found guilty of an offence under this Act.
Why shouldn't 16 and 17 year olds be treated the same as adults?
Since 18 and 17 years old are treated the differently in every thing else why should they be tried as adults. It won't make any sense in not giving them the privileges but giving them all the punishment. I personally believe that the system is very adequate for all ages and doesn't need any age changes.
I am a youth and I am 16, I think we should still be tried as minors because you would be contradicting yourselves if you try us as adults. If we cant go in to R movies till we are 18 adults we cant smoke we cant go to bars. It isn't far to try us as adults when we are still only youth.
I think that youth who commit crimes should be held responsible and tried as adults. if they think they can break the law and get away with it, then how is that going to ever stop the youth from committing crimes. perhaps if their punishments were more intense they would think again about what they are doing before it is too late. I don't think that anybody adult or child should just be locked up though, they should also have opportunities while in jail to make a better life for themselves, otherwise they can sit in jail for the rest of their lives. it's really their choice. if the youth of today want to break the law; then they should be required to take whatever punishment they deserve, and be tried as adults. I hardly think that comparing a crime to going to "R" rated movies compares to the punishment of a crime.
I don't think youth should be tried as an adult because if they are placed in an adult facility they are more likely to pick up more criminal traits from adults, and youth facilities have more rehabilitation programs to help the youth get back on a normal track.
hey I say no!
I am 17 years old and I think any 16 or 17 year old teen should be treated the same as adults. I personally think anyone old enough to know right from wrong, no matter what the age, should be held responsible for their own actions. Therefore being tried as adults at the age of 14 or older. I think it is time for students to get the punishment suitable to the crimes they commit.
I think that in certain cases children should be tried as adults like in some where a child does kill someone and they aren't at the age of 18 yet to be really tried as an adult...I think that they are stupid for doing that...they know better and you know it also. so why not make the new laws of children being tried as adults and let them get the same exact advantage of getting life in prison or death row. see that's the thing if that doesn't happen then you know why not let the adults get charged with the same stuff as adolescents? b/c they can't do that of the age matter. so children that commit crimes that are really irresponsible for their actions then give them the death penalty!!!!!!
I think that if you are 16 or 17 you should not be prosecuted as an adult for the simple fact you are not an adult you are classified as an young adult. I feel if you are young enough to be arrested as a RUNAWAY you are a child. I don't get why this law says you are old enough to be on death row but you are young enough to by liquor and leave your parents house without permission I don't get it ???????????
Definitely yes!! If you are old enough to have the responsibility to drive a car, you are old enough to be responsible for your actions.
if they are old enough to drive a vehicle ,then they are old enough to between what's right and what's wrong.
There has to be a lone somewhere, and why not at 18 years old. If 16 and 17 year olds are treated as adults, then why cant 15 year olds be treated like 16 year olds!!
I believe that you should not be tried as an adult until you are 18 years of age. 18 is the age that allows you to see certain rated movies and go into bars or buy cigarettes and vote. If you are not considered to be an adult with matters such as these than is it really fair to consider someone an adult and to punish them as such?
my opinion regarding this matter is. 16-17 yrs of age should not treat as adults to be prosecuted because they are still young and not matured enough. if they did commit a crime, there should be a limit of the desired crime punishment.
put them in jail
I am a 17 year-old and I feel that young criminals should be tried as adults. Legally an adult is 18 years old but really they aren't. You have to be 19 to drink and go to the casino so where does the age thing come in? I think a teenager is old enough to know what is right and what's wrong-if they don't then there is a serious problem! If a 15 year old can begin to operate a car and at 16 you can drive alone then you are old enough to accept responsibility for your actions. Besides it will cut back on the teenage crime that is going on!
You cannot justify charging and prosecuting young people to the same degree as adults. They aren't given the same privileges or freedoms, so why is it that some people wish to enforce the same punishments? Why do some people believe that throwing children (and that is what they are) into jail with hardened adult criminals will do anything to rehabilitate or guide them? The harsh realities of prison life are not for children to be subjected to. They need extensive rehabilitation and to be placed into secure custody. They do not need Adult jail terms.
I believe that they should be tried as adults. They know right from wrong, at that age. Why should they literally get away with murder? Also, if we impose stricter laws, teens may think twice before they commit a serious offence.
What does voting, buying cigarettes and alcohol have to do with this? Let's stay on topic here. We are talking about a 16 or 17 year old going out and ending someone else's life. Possibly, some-one you know or care about. Does that change your opinion? What about if that was your child hurt or murdered by that 16-17 year old? Would you still argue the same piont of view? It's something to think about.
I think that young offenders should be moved into prison at 18 to finish their sentence
People should not charge teens as adults, because chances are they were brought up incorrectly and should not be punished for their parents' actions.
Maybe if you " grown up responsible adults" got your acts together and supplied some good roll models we wouldn't commit so much crime. But so far the best you got is Eminem and Marilyn Manson. Come on guys.
NO do you know what they do to 16 year old kids in prison?
I am an 18 year old student, learning law. I agree that youth ages 12 to 16 should be tried as adults but only depending on their crime and state of mind. If the "youth" has been abused all his/her life, and in result commits murder. Then that must all be considered.
The transfer from Youth court to adult court is a massive difference. If anyone here has any legal knowledge then you will understand what i am saying. In youth court the maximum for murder is 8 or 10 years, im not 100% sure. In adult court the MINIMUM is life in jail! Now you are telling me that there is no difference between the two, well there is! To transfer a youth to an adult court will not only make it highly likely that they will re-commit once they are released, but also change their lives drastically. If they face life in jail, that will undoubtedly alter their life.
Society seems to realize that most teenagers (including those who are 16 or 17) are still struggling through adolescence-the process of BECOMING an adult. They have not yet mastered adult tasks and responsibilities, and usually they haven't even completed forming their identities, choosing their beliefs or the daunting task of mastering their emotions and controlling their behavior. Numerous studies show that the pre-frontal cortex, which is responsible for rational behavior, is still developing at this age. Kids in this age group are still under the care and control of their parents and are not granted adult legal status because of these things. They're given some responsibilities (ie driving) to slowly introduce them to adulthood-allowing them these responsibilities does not make them responsible and certainly doesn't make them adults. Tougher punishments will only condemn adolescent children because, unlike adults, they often DON'T think before they act. Sending children under 18 to adult prison might just make behaviors worse by reinforcing the "rebel!" "become an individual!" "test limits" behavior that has gone too far in kids who have committed crimes, and expose them to inappropriate adult role models. It also sets them up to give up on themselves, allowing them to continue offending and abandon any development of conscience. Children, especially, can still be taught; Sending a kid to an adult prison is not a disciplinary measure intended to reform and teach, it's about revenge. Getting revenge on someone who's probably neurologically incapable of fully controlling their behavior and realizing the extent of what they've done, regardless of what they consider 'right' and 'wrong' in their still incomplete version of things. What does getting revenge really accomplish?? Trying kids as adults will not cut back on crime. If a child is in a position to commit a serious crime then the consequence will not matter. (BTW If the only reason you don't commit crimes is because you'd go to jail then I don't think you're in a position to talk about knowing right from wrong. )Punishment does not teach right from wrong; it doesn't give you morals. If you want to cut back on youth criminal activity then you should focus on prevention and intervention (like counselling, not jail) for at risk youth and continue with the young offenders act as is.
16 and 17 year olds should not be prosecuted as an adult.
If an young offender is 17 will he loss his record at his 18 birthday?
This is a common fallacy among Canadians. Canadian Youth Court records are not erased at age 18. See YOA s. 45 respecting non-disclosure of records. Below is what the law says, this is not necessarily what happens:
(a) where the young person to whom the record relates is charged with the offence to which the record relates and is acquitted otherwise than by reason of a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on the expiration of two months after the expiration of the time allowed for the taking of an appeal or, where an appeal is taken, on the expiration of three months after all proceedings in respect of the appeal have been completed;
(b) where the charge against the young person is dismissed for any reason other than acquittal or withdrawn, on the expiration of one year after the dismissal or withdrawal;
(c) where the charge against the young person is stayed, with no proceedings being taken against the young person for a period of one year, on the expiration of the one year;
(d) where alternative measures are used to deal with the young person, on the expiration of two years after the young person consents to participate in the alternative measures in accordance with paragraph 4(1)(c);
(d.1) where the young person is found guilty of the offence and the disposition is an absolute discharge, on the expiration of one year after the young person is found guilty;
(d.2) where the young person is found guilty of the offence and the disposition is a conditional discharge, on the expiration of three years after the young person is found guilty;
(e) subject to paragraph (g), where the young person is found guilty of the offence and it is a summary conviction offence, on the expiration of three years after all dispositions made in respect of that offence;
(f) subject to paragraph (g), where the young person is found guilty of the offence and it is an indictable offence, on the expiration of five years after all dispositions made in respect of that offence; and
(g) where, before the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (e) or (f), the young person is, as a young person, found guilty of
(i) a subsequent summary conviction offence, on the expiration of three years after all dispositions made in respect of that offence have been completed, and
(ii) a subsequent indictable offence, five years after all dispositions made in respect of that offence have been completed.
(2) Subject to subsections (2.1) and (2.2), when the circumstances set out in subsection (1) are realized in respect of any record kept pursuant to section 41, the record shall be destroyed forthwith.
I have to write a speech on this topic...i have gotten some views from this site.....predominantly I feel that teens/children under the age of 18 should not be punished as adults, but there should be a limit(i.e. murder etc..). If the law does not consider a person under 18 an adult then how can our judicial system contradict its own laws? Also, why should our youth, including myself, be punished for certain things as an adult, but yet do not get our privilages until we are actually 18 years of age? I realize that if you know the difference between right and wrong some think that they could then take on the responsibilities of their actions....BUT who is to say that someone that is a quick learner knows the difference of right and wrong at the age of 7? should they then be charged as an adult too? Just because someone can operate a vehicle does not mean that they have many other responsibilities. Also, how can we only focus on adding in our 16 and 17 yr olds, how can you pin point a certain age in between child and adult? Another point that is mentioned is that child facilities have a lot of rehibilitation programs so their whole life does not consist of jail. Think, aren't we trying to improve the youth/young adults of today to better our future? Sending more young people to adult facilities may decrease the generation of these people.....many adults cannot even last in jail long.....how do you think a teenager could? Also, if a child does some monsterous crime don't they stay in the child facility longer and if they are 16 or 17 and stayed there for 1-2 years.....let's do the math....they would be 18 now anyway and don't they get transfered over? Well, that is I think all I have so far....I want to thank you for some of YOUR comments!
Some people think that rights aren't very important for young people. They say that if young persons commit serious crime then they should be punished no matter what. YOA s. 3(1)(e) states: (e) young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, including those stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or in the Canadian Bill of Rights, and in particular a right to be heard in the course of, and to participate in, the processes that lead to decisions that affect them, and young persons should have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms". Maybe these are meaningless words? If the crime is bad enough shouldn't we override the rights? Sir Thomas More answered these complaints. See the play by Robert Bolt "A Man for all Seasons" for an analysis of whether or not it is a good idea to cut a great road through the laws of England to go after the Devil. The same analysis applies in Canada.
i am 22 years old and alot of you give good excuses, not arguements you need to learn to except responsablity for your own actings and if you act your ages you will be treated that way.
A crime is a crime, it doesn't matter how old you are.
I believe strongly that 16 and 17 year olds should be tried as adults. They know right from wrong,especially if it is good or not to murder someone. And don't tell me that everybody makes mistakes, they do yes, but killing or attempting to kill a person isn't to be looked at as just a mistake. I mean come on, this subject makes my blood boil...people don't get it, they have criminal teens out there and they are gonna just let them off with a slap on the wrist. THEY KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG! So don't keep protecting them...they are not little kids anymore...I am a teen myself...I find it insulting that adults try and say that we aren't mature enough to make the right decisions or to control our behavior and emotions like we should. If teens are just gonna go out and commit henious crimes, they should be punished as an adult
I think the best solution to this problem is to settle in the middle. Yes there should be strict laws so not every teen gets thrown in jail. Yes maybe juvenile punishments that are suitable for teens until they're adults and the laws concerning the adults should be taken into effect. Obviously they know its wrong to take another life, so why not pay the price for their actions?
I'm doing a debate for school, and I found this page while doing some research. And I think that most juveniles SHOULD be tried as adults; if a juvenile just ran away from home they shouldn't be, but if a juvenile committed a serious crime, like murder or manslaughter, they should have to be punished more severely. And yes the Juvenile Justice System may have some flaws, but all things do! So that just means that they have to rethink or adjust some things! Juveniles that commit serious crimes SHOULD be tried as adults!!
i think that teens should not be tried as adults because they are still in their prime. Teens now are immature til the age of about 23. i think its pretty dumb that you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, 18 to vote, and 21 to drink, but you can be tried as an adult as young as 13 years old. its like a double standard, the only time they treat us as adults is when we do something wrong, other than that were just treated like kids that don't know anything.
No way I am in my 40's and thing the Steven Truscott case is a prime example as to why a youth of any age should not be treated an an adult. We don't give the benifits of being an adult at 16 or 17 so why would we treat them the same in court. Us adults can't have it both ways.
Only if they rob a taco-bell or push a bike over. If they do one of those two things, then they should be tried as adults.
There are so many age limits set out in Canada as to when a person is old enough to legally do this or that! Is it reasonable that a fourteen-yr-old can consent to sex without parental permission but can't get married without parental permission? One must be 16 to drive, 18 to vote and 19 to consume alcohol. If an 16 year old is not considered mature enough to take part in the political proceedings of our country, why should they be tried as an adult?
i don't think that teens should be tried as adults because some still don't know right from wrong
16 and 17 year olds are not adults they are still teenagers.
this site has been super helpful
no, because almost every country in the world defines an adult as 18 or over...not 16 and over!
By the age of 16 and 17 , one is able to process the aftermath of an offence . A young person of this age has the mental capacity of understanding the difference of right from wrong . Therefore should be able to think before they act .
minors shouldn't be tried as adults because it'll just make it worst they go to jail or prison and come out 10 times worst then before they need discipline not incarceration
I AM 16 LAST YEAR I GOT ARRESTED I WAS TRIED AS AN ADULT AND WENT TO COUNTY JAIL AND LET ME TELL YOU ITS A WHOLE LOT WORST BECAUSE YOUR IN THERE WITH MURDERS,RAPIST,THIEVES AND SO ON AND THEY YELL AND TELL YOU THINGS THAT GET TO YOUR HEAD AND YOU HONESTLY DO CONSIDER DOING THINGS WHEN YOU GET OUT LIKE GETTING REVENGE ON THE JUDGE OR THE PROSECUTOR OR THE PERSON WHO CALLED THE COPS OR THE ARRESSTING OFFICER HIMSELF THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS CHILDREN SHOULD NOT GO TO JAIL BECAUSE ITS A BAD EXPERIENCE I GUARANTEE YOU WILL MAKE ENEMIES AND YOU WILL HAVE TO LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER ALL THE TIME AND IF YOU COME ACROSS ONE OF YOUR ENEMIES YOU WILL COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME DEFENDING YOURSELF BUT NOBODY WILL BELIEVE YOU ANY WAYS JAIL HASN'T DONE ANYTHING FOR ME BUT TAUGHT ME MORE WAYS TO GET AWAY WITH CRIMES AND HOW TO BREAK IN TO CARS,HOUSES AND BUSINESSES BUT 95% OF MINORS TRIED AS MINORS ARE MOST LIKELY TO LEARN OFF THEIR MISTAKES I GOT OUT OF JAIL WITH THE SAME CRIMINAL MIND JUST SMARTER ABOUT GETTING CAUGHT.
i BELIEVE THAT A TEEN SHOULD BE TRIED AS AN ADULT. tHE REASON BEING THAT IF A TEEN HAS ENOUGH SENSE HOW TO WORK A GUN AND TO PLAN OUT A MURDER THAN A TEEN CAN DEFINITELY FACE UP TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
A crime is a crime you get what you deserve.
If there are rules that are strict for 16 & 17 year olds then they better think twice before they do something stupid.
I believe that if you are old enough to commit the crime you are old enough to spend the time in jail. Some of the young offenders believe that it is ok to do what they want and get away with it, do to the Young Offenders Act. I think we should be a bit more strict with are youth today because they get away with too much.
because they don't get treated as adults out of the courtroom. It's a double standard, only considering minors as adults when it's convenient for the prosecutor.
Age is nothing but a number. What is truly the difference between a 17 year old who commits a murder than an 18 year old who commits the same murder? Absolutely nothing but a number. What is the principle behind determining these age cutoffs? Is it maturity, knowledge or experience? Who is to say that an 18 year old is more knowledgeable than a 17 year old? It is a fact that adolescent females mentally mature quicker than adolescent males. Therefore, wouldn't it be logical to make the age cutoff for female delinquents lower than the male's? Age only represents a number not necessarily amount of knowledge, maturity or values.
I am doing this debate for a school report and i think it's crazy!!!! i would be considered a "young person", and i still think if i commited a crime as powerful and as hurtful as murder than i need to do the time like an older persdon that would be smart enough to do the same crime. i think it's crazy that young murderers are getting let off sooo easy with just a slap on the wrist, i mean i know i'm smart enough to distinguish right from wrong and that i am smart enough to commit a murder (not saying i ever would) so if i know i'm smart enough to commit a murder than why souldnt i be smart enough to know that what i did was wrong and should be punished SEVERELY!!!!! well i think it's just crazy and i've said what i needed to say, soo just consider this!!!
Yes they should they are old enough to face jail they knew that they would get in troubles when they did it.They know what they did so they know what was going to happen when they got caught.
I believe that if a person can get a drivers liscense at 16 then they should be prosecuted as adults. Getting a drivers lisence prooves that they can make smart desicions therefore they should be prosecuted as adults!!!
I think that teens should be tried as adults, there is an age of accountability, and I think that they should take responsibility for their actions like an adult. Teens ask to be treated like adults by their parents, but not the courts...it doesn't make sense, they want the responsibility at home, but no where else...HELLO...treat them like the adults they want to be!!!
yes, i am a 16 year old and i know right from wrong, every teen wants responsibilities of bring an adult so the should be punished like one!
Well i'm doing a debate for school too and i reallyh think it depends on the age, the sitation and that person's metal age
No, teens are teens look up the word adult. and see the ages they have under that, for those that think they should be charged that way apparently haven't had to deal with the law its self and haven't a clue how it would feel. charge them as adults but they are not allowed the same priviliges as adults being held in adult jails and prisons teens should not be charged as adults and doing this is not the answer. since this law has went into effect you have more adults who take advantage of teens involving them in crimes when they are connected to the teens in these cases they get the same punishment as the teen?? when it is so very clear they are a true adult and in control not the teen if your going to continue with this kind of outrageous law then the adults who get teens involved in crime should recieve stronger punishment because they are a adult not 12-18 adult in the dictionary says of the legal age of 21 12-18 doesn't go anywhere near that age all those that think this way stop and think what if your teen was involved in a felony crime? put your self in teens shoes! fair is fair and this law is outrageous! this law is running ramped and for those who have dealt with this then you dont really know thinking about it and having to actually face this kind of this is two totally diffrent things so stop and think!
If your not concidered an adult till you can vote why should you be tried as one?
16 and 17 year-olds are technically still minors. They cannot yet vote, drink or do sign anything without their parents/guardian's consent. This does not mean that anybody under 18 should'nt be tried as adults. Every case id different. I do think though that if anybody 14 and over commits first-degree murder, they should be automatically tried as an adult.
Firstly, while there remain laws and ovbious defintions for 'right' and 'wrong', when it comes down it, right and wrong are adjectives and are subject to personal opinions and circumstance. Someone's ability to judge right or wrong can be very different from that of the majority-so the idea that young people know right from wrong is irrelevent. In fact, the idea of 'paying' for your crime is a bit irrelevent as well-how does that help? Will sending anyone, let alone a child-because that's what 16 and 17 year olds are-to jail or serving them the death penalty accomplish anything in the way of preventing future crimes or rehabilitating them? How does punishment actually change the offender's perception and understanding? If you're in a place to commit a horrible crime like murder, already the punishment doesn't matter. (By the way, teenagers who commit serious crimes do not just get a slap on the wrist.) I'm not making 'excuses', nothing excuses anyone regardless of age of their responsibility for their actions, but there are better ways to handle someone who is so messed up that they can commit a serious offence than to try and serve them the worst revenge possible. That's horrible to put on anybody, but especially young people who are still changing.
We are not babies always talk about don't treat me like a little kid so if you do the crime like an adult you should be charged like one
I disagree with this debate because the young offenders act states that a "young person" is between the ages of 12 and 18, therefore a sixteen yr. old should be sentenced like a 16 yr old, not an adult. I am a lot younger than i may sound and have studied this topic a lot, and I would be prepared to protest against this with all my knowledge! Thank you. :)
If you are under age you should be treated like you are. If the person is to young to buy beer or other thing like that, cause he or she is under. How can you prosecuted that person as a adult.
I'm 16 and i know right from wrong. So should everyone else my age. I think that they should be found guilty as a adult.
I believe that the judicial system should be overhauled, i believe that punishments in the youth courts should be as extensive as adult, pending on the crime, like if a youth is charged for murder, he or she should have the same punishment, however not transferred to a adult prison until that youth turns into an adult. IF THE JUVENILE COURTS WOULD ENFORCE STRICTER PUNISHMENTS, We might not have this problem.
Although many 16 and 17 year olds are intelligent enough to think and act like adults, there must be a line drawn somewhere. The law says that persons under the age of a 18 are "young persons" and are therefore tried as such. If there are "exceptions" made for some, then what is the point of having regulations around age? I think a young person is a young person, and it should just be left at that.
16-17 year olds should not be tried as adults
The problem is, as I'm sure many people have mentioned before me, that 16 and 17 are the years when people are deciding how they are going to live the rest of their lives. Ignoring the few special cases, people at the age of 16 and 17 definitely know the difference between right, and wrong but is punishing them the way to go? People that age have not yet defined themselves, that's why you see the homeboys, the skaters, and the Goths in every high school, they only know of the world presented to them through their family structure and the media. It's naive to think that people below the age of 20 (again looking only at tha majority) truly have a sense of individuality. So what message would they receive if they are indeed treated as thought they were common criminals. It's not all about the punishment, it's also about the reformation. What are the chances of a successful reformation at the age of 16 - 20? Decent? Maybe, maybe not but compared to the chances of a reforming a 30 year old they're extraordinary! Treating people who are only 16 or 17 years old as though they were adults will insure a stricter punishment but it wastes a potentially stable member of society.
I am a 16 year old and I think teens should be tried as adults depending on what crime they've committed. Teens are old enough to understand what they are doing, so therefore they should pay the price. It shouldn't matter how old you are if you know right from wrong.
Note from S. Biss:
But do 16 and 17 year old fully understand criminal law procedure, the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system, the purposes of interrogation, the role of counsel, and the right to remain silent? See R. v. J.T.J. in the Supreme Court of Canada where Cory J. noted:
"By its enactment of s. 56, Parliament has recognized the problems and difficulties that beset young people when confronted with authority. It may seem unnecessary and frustrating to the police and society that a worldly wise, smug 17-year-old with apparent anti-social tendencies should receive the benefit of this section. Yet it must be remembered that the section is to protect all young people of 17 years or less. A young person is usually far more easily impressed and influenced by authoritarian figures. No matter what the bravado and braggadocio that young people may display, it is unlikely that they will appreciate their legal rights in a general sense or the consequences of oral statements made to persons in authority; certainly they would not appreciate the nature of their rights to the same extent as would most adults. Teenagers may also be more susceptible to subtle threats arising from their surroundings and the presence of persons in authority. A young person may be more inclined to make a statement, even though it is false, in order to please an authoritarian figure. It was no doubt in recognition of the additional pressures and problems faced by young people that led Parliament to enact this code of procedure."
16 and 17 year old's are old enough to have full time jobs, make the decision not to continue their education and can drive. 16 and 17 year olds are old enough to know what is right and what is wrong and also understand what consequences are. They should be responsible for their actions and should be treated as adults.
no, 16 and 17 year olds should not be prosecuted as adults. they should still be prosecuted as young offenders due to the legal age of majority. which is the age of 18!!!
i feel 16 and 17 year olds should be prosecuted as adults rather than under the young offenders act.
Adolescents should be tried as adults, if they are old enough to drive, surely they are old enough to be convicted of crimes they do. What's the difference between adults and adolescents? Nothing. Adults can drive, so can adolescents, adults are charged for their crimes, so should adolescents.
Since 18 year olds have the option to move out of their long time home they should be tried as adults if its a major crime like armed robbery, Murder or a D.U.I that caused someone to die. but if its a younger child like a 6 year old that accidentally killed some one with their dad's loaded .22 don't you think that the child should have another chance??? wouldn't you want another chance if you were the child or the parent.. As a child you only get to be a child till you are 18 and know what the decisions you make mean and will do for you and the people around you.
NO people who think they should needs a small taste of this law just a small taste then they to would be saying no if they think that this law will not affect them in the future they are in total utter denial yes teens should be punished but not to the extreme people want.....we have places for them to be juvenile! and for those who think this is wrong really let our mind explore this one question what if it was my son or daughter? and this law only made it easier for the adult criminals to take more advantage of the teens of this country if you crazy people want to keep this law then stop spending money on useless sports figures and build a prison for juveniles or raise the limit of years they can be held in juvenile facilities instead of 21 make it 25.....all I have left to say when one of these teens are murdered in prison who do their parents hold accountable law makers the public who wanted this law or judges maybe and for sure prosecutors...ask your selves some real smart questions instead of letting your adult egos run amok for once. this is out right injustice to our young people and for those who have a they think good reply well i hope you have to face this law someday then maybe you will think like a human being!
There is no question to what they should do! If you are under the age of 18 you should be tried as a juvenile! Children can't live in a prison with a bunch of adults, that's just not right.
i think 12 years is the age that children should be able to use the young offenders act up until. If people are able to commit a crime then they should be able to take responsibility of their actions.
Personally no, i don't think nobody under the age of 18 be prosecuted, because it just isn't right to see a minor get prosecuted at a very young age they got a whole life ahead of them to live. Yes, teenagers do make mistakes so let them learn from them. And them if the continue to be bad them that's when you can decide on such harsh punishment as you've decided. So, my answer is no they shouldn't get prosecuted at the age of 16 and 17.
SO WHAT IF TEENS HAVE DRIVING PRIVILEGES THEY STILL CAN'T GO TO BARS OR BUY CIGARETTES WHEN THEY ARE ABLE TO GO TO A BAR THEN THEY COULD BE TRIED AS ADULTS
IF YOU TRIEd A KID AS AN ADULT THEN THEIR RECORDS GONNA BE THERE FOREVER AND AS FAR AS DOING BETTER FOR THEMSELVES THEY CAN'T BECAUSE NOBODY WILL HIRE THEM FOR A JOB AND THE ONLY JOB THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GET WILL BE ILLEGAL SELLING DRUGS PROBABLY TO YOUR KIDS, ROBBING HOUSES PROBABLY YOURS, OR ROBBING STORE'S AND KILLING THE CLERK PROBABLY YOUR LOVED ONE BUT WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY IS LET THEM BE KIDS DO BETTER FOR THEM SO WE ALL CAN BE HAPPY. UNLESS ITS MURDER NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE A LIFE
yes! i think any child who commits an adult crime definitely should be tried as an adult because if they are committing an adult crime then they should most definitely pay the adult time!
why shouldn't they be treated like adults???!!! for one if your going to enact a law such as this they should have the right to vote as well not go to school if your going to charge them as adults then you need the common sense to give them the same rights at that age!
As a youth of almost 18, I feel that there should be fair and just punishments for youth who commit crimes. A slap on the wrist, which is what they are getting, is not helping to deter them from crime, only enticing them. When a 16 yr old has placed into their hands a set of car keys, and along with these car keys comes a substantial responsibility, and that "child" has just become an adult without possibly knowing it. A car, like a gun, is a dangerous weapon, and when a weapon is placed under the guidance of a 16 year old they are now legally, and morally responsible for the repercussions the item holds, ie. a car, or even a gun. It has been proven that people of 16 years of age do in fact have the mental and moral capacity to know what is wrong and what is right, and in taking a risk at a crime, they should be allowed to receive an adult sentence. I believe that a youth is legally responsible for themselves and their well-being by the age of 16, and with this come great responsibility. I also believe it is absolutely obscene that these 16 year olds are not already being tried as adults. Get with the times....!
Yea it doesnt matter what you try them as be adult or Juvy .i been in both and the outcome of it all was ill change when i want to.......being told what to do and authority is the bottom line. People will only change when THEY WANT to. Placing them in Adult Pens although i do feel is a lil harse on ones youth but Juvenille detention are the same RESPECT. Also, i think it should depend on their crime and background ........Whose the ADULTS here?.........
the stupid kids shouldn'y hurt anayone. I'm 16
you cant try a 16 or 17 year old kid as an adult if really he doesn't have adult privileges. If you want to try a 16 or 17 year old as an adult you have to lower the drinking age to 16 and sell tobacco products to kids 16 years as well. You might as well change the legal driving age to 15 as well. You got to make everything fit together.
should you be tried as an adult if somebody is shooting at a loved one and you shoot back to save em'???? put it this way if somebody is shooting at your brother,son or father and you got a gun would you shoot back or sit there and watch em' get shot and killed??? how would you feel if your loved one got killed and you know you could of did something about????!!!! somebody,write your feelings about this subject
if your gonna charge a 16 year old as an 18 year old then you might as well change the legal driving age to 14!!!!!!!!!!
anybody disagree then speak your mind!!!!
I've been tried as an adult and its nothing but being in jail with a bunch of other little kids you dont learn off you mistake and you don't regret doing the crime you regret getting caught when you tried as an adult you really dont understand the circumstances
I believe that if you're going to start trying 15 and 16 year olds as adults then they should get the same privileges as adults if they want to start drinking and driving well then you can try them as adults but if they try to get in a bar then they have to be allowed in. Also if they want to buy cigarettes they must be allowed and if they want to get their license. So I think that they should either let them be adults and let them face the consequences and privileges or let them be tried as minors and let them be minors. Either way you're going to lose something!!!
i think everybody tried as an adult should get the same privileges as them they should be able to drink, smoke, live alone and get their licence when they want instead of waiting till they're 18
Any 16 or 17 year old that commits a sex crime should no better and yes should be tried as an adult!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i got busted for drinking underage and now serve a life sentence in the State Penitentiary... GET ME OUT!!!
Kids know the law and they know how protected they are under the young offenders act. Canada needs to wake up and stop protecting the guilty. The majority of kids know right from wrong and when they commit a crime (ie: murder) a harsh sentence should be what's in store for them. (The dead kid doesn't get his life back on track in a couple of years.) Parents need to be more aware of their children's everyday activities and the judicial system needs to wake up and smell the coffee. "Justice for the victims", not "protection for the guilty".
bottom line don't try kids as adults unless they rape or murder somebody other then that let your kids be kids!!!!!!!!!
Yesterday in Brampton, one 14 year old killed another 14 year old. Doesn't this tell us that we need to quit protecting the guilty and start protecting the victims. 14 year olds know right from wrong. If 14 year olds are capable of this awful crime then they need to do the time as adults.
Editor's Note: Shouldn't we wait until the trial takes place to find out if the person is guilty or not? Or should all persons charged be presumed guilty?
minors shouldn't be tried as adults unless they murder somebody other than that they should be tried as minors.
I think that people who are the age of 14 and up should be punished as adults. I don't think anyone younger should especially boys because they don't mature until a certain age.
BELIEVE THAT JUVENILES SHOULDN'T BE CHARGED AS ADULTS IN COURT. I'M A YOUNG PERSON AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE TREATED AS WE ARE, YOUTH!!! BESIDES MAINLY IN JUVENILE CRIMES IT LITTLE CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING SENT TO JAIL FOR LIFE FOR CRIMES THAT MOST OF THEM DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND. I FEAR FOR A CHILD WHO'S ABOUT 12 GOING TO PRISON AND BE SURROUNDED BE GROWN MEN. HOW WILL THEY EVER SURVIVE?
Yes they should.
I feel that if a person under 21 should be tried as a juvenile because, we are not yet adults yet. we do not have the rights as adults why be charged as one. We can't buy tobacco products, alcohol and type of substance to that effect. I'm 17 and I feel that most of the laws we have are ridiculous and uncalled for.
I think teens who are committing these crimes should be tried as adults. Any teen should know that taking a life away from someone is wrong. But what about these parents who 6 and 7 year olds are finding their guns and using them. Isn't this double standards here. From the day that a child is born they are being taught right from wrong. I think you guys should think about everything else.
Don't be stupid! An individual under the age of 18 is not granted "adult rights"; therefore, why should criminal law treat them as adults? As far as other statutes are concerned, an individual is NOT an adult until 18.
In the YCJA, depending upon the severity of the crime, 16 & 17 yr olds can STILL receive sentencing which is equivalent to adult court. That should be enough.
Consider the idea of a 17 yr old commiting a crime, and receiving 15 yrs with parole granted after 10 yrs. This person is 27 (minimum) before he/she is released. This person is more likely worse now then when he/she went into jail. After 18, that person has to be transferred to adult jails, and while there, what will they be learning? Consider that a youth will spend 9 years learning ways to "cheat the system" or will become more "street smart". Are you sure you will want this person back on the streets? This person will have lost out on the social contact of a regular teenager. There is a LARGE emotional difference between a 16 year old sent to jail and getting out at 26 and a 26 year old sent to jail and getting out at 36. Not many 16 year olds have completely y developed emotionally, and a 16 year old that ends up sentenced for 10 years will be losing the socialization process which they obviously cannot get in jail, especially not in an "adult jail".
16 band 17 yr old as adults no way no no way it should not be allowed in this country
The Rules are fine the way they are!!!!
let kids be kids get all the bad out when there are young and live a truthful life when old
It is true that you can not smoke or watch certain movies until you are 18, but teens who are under the age of 18 continue to do the things that they are not supposed to do. If teens are not tried when the commit horrific violent acts than we are saying it is okay for you to do it because you are under 18. Even though you are old enough to know what is right and wrong. Regardless of age people need to know there are consequences in everything.
There seems to be a lot of opinions posted regarding the morality of treatment of 16 and 17 year-old children's behavior, but it appears the only input that was requested is pertaining to the definition of a young person as defined above being between 12yrs to 16yrs old.
This site is the best No they should not be tried like adults because they are still young and they are not adults yet so they still make mistakes
I think that there should be more things done to young offenders. And from personal experience there is not a lot that is done to prevent the offenders from getting out on the street again.
Minors(under18) should not I repeat should not be put in jail. It is wrong and cruel. it should be titled CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. If we aren't aloud to smoke or see rated R-movies we can't be put in jail. It's inhuman!!!! Who ever thinks that we belong in that (rated R) place, they have a sick mind and belong in a mental institute!!! if we are small enough to not be allowed in adult places, why the heck do you think we are big enough to be in adult jail. You do realize that we could be killed or raped or molested or something "worse" if that's even possible.
No, I strongly disagree with that. Crimes will go on until the end of time. I think police officers should be punished more than they do. They take our juveniles 16and 17 and treat them worse than some older adults. I feel as though if they can be tried as adults at that age, they should be treated like the same adults when trying purchasing items like cigarettes etc.,.
being tried as an adult when your 16/17 is like saying that if you 15 you can drive a car, or if you 20 you can drink and you can't get punished. the government is setting an example that if your close to the right age you mine as well do it anyways.
I don't understand how a society can be so hypocritical. One moment you are saying that children (and let's not forget that anyone under the age of 18 is a child) don't have the maturity or wisdom to drink, smoke, join the military, or most importantly vote for the people who are the ones saying that it is okay to kill minors. If they can't grasp reality enough to do the afore mentioned "adult" activities then why should or better yet how can anyone say that minors should be prosecuted as adult. It seems to me that many people are talking out of both sides of their mouths, and it makes me grieved to know that I am a part of such a two-faced society.
maybe young offenders should be treated as adults if they are mature enough to understand what they have done and that there will be consequences, because all too often a youth will break the law because they have the feeling of invincibility, that the law cannot touch them...
I do not believe that juveniles should be tried as adults under any circumstances. There are blended sentencing alternatives for the most violent juvenile offenders. The young people tried as adults in our country are often sentenced to adult facilities where they are literally sentenced to be molested by adult criminals. Youth in adult facilities is a death sentence for many, as the experience causes them to be 8 times more likely to commit suicide. The U.S. is one of the worst countries in the world for sentencing juveniles as adults. We should be ashamed. Violent Juvenile crime is actually lower today, Why pass a death sentence on these kids?? Whose political agenda is being promoted at the expense of our weakest members of society??
yes i think minors should be tried as in adult, because they might be 14, 15, 16 ,17 years old, but they know what they are doing. So, when they do a horrible crime they should pay for it, just like an adult.
I don't think it's fair if 16 year olds must endure the punishment of an adult, but are deprived of the privileges of being a "legal adult." However, as a 16 year old myself, I can say that (most) people my age are aware of what is right and wrong. Even 10 year olds know that killing is bad. But where do you draw the line? My final choice is to prosecute 15 and up as adults, but soften the punishment a little. A life sentence would be too harsh, but community service? Please
yes they should be prosecuted under adult charges
I do not think that there is any clear cut difference between a seventeen year old or an eighteen year old. There is no reason to believe that eighteen years of life automatically mean that you're a mature, competent adult.
Oh yes, and I think it's irrelevant that minors can't smoke. It's to protect us...the younger you are, the higher your chances of addiction and lung cancer. As for R-rated movies, well, I would abolish that if I could. So long as the beliefs of the people pushing to try minors as adults are consistent, how the law currently treats minors shouldn't be brought up as a conflict with those of us favoring the death penalty for minors. (And by beliefs, I mean what they think an adult is and what privileges a child should get.)
I am 18 and just finishing highschool. I personally think that part of becoming a functioning adult in society means getting treated like one. Yes, we may not get to partake in many things, but part of becoming a mature adult means being accountable for your actions. And as an 18 year old, I can say I know the difference between right and wrong, as do the vast majority of others my age when it comes to serious offences. Saying "Children under age 18 should not be tried as adults because they can't partake in society fully" does no justice! Its proving the opposite,I think. All it is doing is furthering the idea that those who are under 18 have no accountability. They do know the difference between right and wrong!
City Chauvin Alberta Date no quite sure 3:34
The idea of sending 15-16 year olds to adult jail doesnt surprise me in the slightest pesonally i belive in this new day and age not only that should be changed but the voting ages should be relaxed as well as smoking and so forth. We are not dumb and the argument that parents would influence our vote is quite innane they can barely control most of us as it is let alone something as specific as that. It is the same with a 15 year old going out and commiting murder he should go to adult prison. Manslaughter is another thing tho it implies accidental killing such as hitting a rain slick patch of highway and crashing into a telephone pole. I am personally 16 and have always believed that children know much more then their parents would wish we mature much more rapidly then most scientists would like and most importantly we are not dumb/innocent/immune to the laws there is very little innocence these days and it has been proven that children have been getting smarter and smarter by the generation. If you think this is long winded and pointless go ahead and skip to the next argument.(which most likely will be another one sentence statement of their oppinion without reasoing behind it or actual evidence) I found this while searching for a debate in social i needed questions to ask the other side that is saying that the act should stay the same. My veiw is farely simple.
A)get rid of the age restrictions on being charged as adult for 15-16 year olds
B) if you can do that then lower the voting age as well to 15-16 the 15-16 year olds could go and get their voting licence(yes just like student drivers licences) each of the 15-16 year olds votes would only count for half a vote even tho they are oviously aware enough about politics to actually go and get the thing in the first place it will appease the politicians and ignorent parents that dont want their children to grow up (which most have already anyway)
C) sharper penalties would do nothing but remove a singular problem more and more would continue to pop up you ask why this is? it is because our society is made like this children smart or dumb are considered to be babies far past the point when they are aware of this affect. How would you for instance like it if the goverment inforced a law that did not allow you do go out longer then 10:00 o clock every night? (yes im talking about military law and such like but you do get the drift dont you?) Every person should be allowed the right to have rights children have rights but most of them are to confine not allow them to get out this is probaly what causes the rebelious additudes among the young(such as myself) lol i must admit this is getting long winded and the casual observer will probaly not read it but the few that actually do give a #^@# about the subjects that i layed out might read it Good day to you all my mas probely wonderin why i stayed at school till 4 typing and reading. Hope yall win the lotto i sure am hoping i do or i might end up in politics for a few years to earn myself a pension.
I think if your 12 or older, you are fully aware of your actions and consequences,and hence, should be dealt with accordingly.
I think that the juvinile system is only for juviniles that have commited crimes such as theft, assault, probation etc. It should not be for criminal that commit murder or rape!
i'm a little confused and i'm under custody of my mom but living with my dad
I think that 16/17 year olds should be tried as adults, but only in certain cases ( where extreme crimes have been commited ; murder). A lot of people say "Well if you have to be 18 to vote or to get into an R rated movie or that you have to be 19 to smoke, and 16/17 year olds aren't considered old enough to do those things then they why should they receive the same consequences as adults." Comitting murder or beating some one so badly that they are put into a coma or disabled in some way is a little different then not being able to get into the movies. Besides when you are at that age you know the difference between right and wrong, and that you need to take the responsibility for your actions. If you can commit a serious crime like murder or assault causing severe bodily harm, then you should be able receive the consequences that go along with it.And if these offenders are not treated as adults... then they realize that they can get off pretty easy and will be that much more likely to commit another crime.
Editor's note: Most crime committed by young persons including 16 and 17 year olds in Canada relates to property offences and very minor assaults. Most work in Youth Court relates to minor offences. Murder is rare. Both the YOA and YCJA presume that older young persons who commit murder will be dealt with in adult court or by adult sentence. Under the YCJA any person over age 14 can be given an adult sentence for a serious indictable offence if the Court considers that appropriate..
I am tailking about 16 year old boys tailking to 18 year old girls
I, Think that 16,17 yrs.should not be treated in the same way you would treat an adult,for the simple reason as you wouldn't treat an adult as a child!!The law was made one way and now someone wants to make a very big mistake and make some changes.Well then change the legal age,for drk,smk,movi,ect....to 15'
my son was seveteen and was at a party police came in and he was high he mouthed off got badlybeaten then while being draged down the stair spit on an officer. He was charged with assautl put in jail for 18 months now has probation aner management. He has a record . He was never in trouble before this. His life is going to be ruined by his record police assault and from being in jail. He was a child who had a pot problem, In the State ofve NH the laws should change, I wanted him in Dru reharp but he was an adult and it was his choice and not mine. so the result he went to jail!