… whole world in a bottle?
May 24th, 2008 by PavelIn a 5-4 split decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that young offenders no longer have to prove that they are, indeed, deserving to be treated like young people. Previously, any youth alleged to have committed a serious offense was automatically tried as an adult; The onus was on them to prove that they in some way “deserved” to be treated like a child. The challenge centered around s. 7 of the Charter, arguing that this reverse onus represented an unwarranted infringement of one’s liberty contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. S. 7 is notoriously vague and open to discretionary measures, but this isn’t just another move by “activist judges” looking to clutter our streets with young hooligans (snicker snicker). The courts have repeatedly ruled that youths require a separate line of rehabilitation measures and the state has a responsibility to young offenders to prove this shouldn’t apply.
Right-wing media is already clamoring on that this just further proves the Youth Criminal Justice Act is inadequate in stopping a supposed “rise in violent young thugs”. This kind of language is preposterous. Despite yearly fluctuations in violent crimes, the trend across nearly ALL types of such incidences have plummeted over the past couple of decades. This is true for young offenders as well.
More importantly, this ruling comes at a time when the Harper government is actively attacking the discretionary power of judges. The current government is proceeding with legislation to impose mandatory minimum sentences for petty and moderate drug offenses, irregardless of individual circumstance. While one can understand the need to cut off the supply of cocaine and heroin traffic within our urban communities, the idea of an arbitrarily imposed prison sentence for someone growing a single lonely pot plant in their backyard doesn’t sit well with me. This would have been an even bigger problem without this recent court ruling, as we’d be having 16 year old potheads getting 3 year adult prison sentences for having a personal stash in their car. That is not justice.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
wow.. I had no idea young offender treatment was so half-assed before. What did the dissenting judges use to argue that the reverse onus is fair? I’m actually blown away that it worked like that.
And yes, mandatory minimums for drug offences are stupid, nuts, and overall really shitty. Think they’ll go through?
May 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Charter Challenges 101:
S.7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
So the question is whether automatically trying kids as adults goes against this section of the charter. To the courts, jail sentences are seen as the ultimate removal of one’s “liberty”. In this case, young offenders are having their liberty deprived unilaterally, as “adults”, despite the fact that they are not. Consequently, the law is undeniable contrary to the charter. Still, the law can stand if it’s in accordance with “fundamental justice”.
The two sides of the justice debate are most likely society’s need to protect itself from violent young offenders being weighed against the court’s concession that children are inherently immature and deserving of extra protection. The dissenting judges in this case felt that young offenders would still be protected by a separate youth justice system during the court proceedings, but that a special youth status for sentencing would be inappropriate. What they said is that youths should apply for special consideration with their immaturity as a mitigating factor - the majority disagreed, noting explicit precedent protecting young people’s interests.
And unfortunately minimum drug sentences seem inevitable. Hopefully the fact they’ve been mulling them over since before last September means the legislation is SNAFU and we can look towards a more nuanced/medical understanding of drug addiction.