Letter to the Justice Minister of Canada

Dear Justice Minister of Canada,

I am writing in order to inform you of my point of view regarding whether or not, two youth who have committed the same crime, should be sentenced the same way. As a Canadian youth citizen, if I were to commit a crime, I would be tried and sentenced under the Canadian Youth Justice Act. This Act, should take into consideration a youth’s circumstances, such as, the severity of the crime, the offender’s criminal history, and also the offender’s personal life. Two offenders are two very different people and, therefore, should be tried differently. By taking circumstance into consideration, the justice system is able to create fair punishments.  

Should a premeditated crime have the same consequences as that of an accidental crime? The answer is no. A youth’s sentencing should take into play the seriousness of the crime, and also the intent. On April 1, 2003 a youth named Justin Morton brought his classmate deep into the woods to play a “ game of trust”. Not too long after, noises were heard from the woods, and the young classmate died from strangulation. The murder weapon was Morton’s belt (source TheStar.com).  On October 14^th, 2004 a 16-year-old youth, driving under the influence of drugs, crashed into the car of a mother of three. The result was an instant death (source-The Globe and Mail, National). Although both of these crimes involved murder, one was planned out of hate for a human, and the other was a stupid mistake. It is clear, that the boy, who murdered his classmate, had a psychological problem, while the other boy abused drugs. Therefore, they should both receive different punishments and treatments with the hope that one day they can be reintegrated into society. So how can the sentencing of other crimes be determined? In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled “that only truly violent offences” can result in the incarnation of a youth (source-The Globe and Mail, National). This means that other youth offenses are solved over counseling, community service, fines and reimbursement for stolen goods. However, this paper maintains that severity should also influence the sentencing of a crime. In a surprising study done by Stats Canada, it was revealed that since 1991, violent crimes have risen an astounding 30%. The message is clear. Youth who commit violent crimes should be punished harsher in order to convey the message that crime wont be tolerated, and to keep others from repeating crime. What else should be a contributing factor in determining severity?

If a young offender has repeatedly broken the Law, it shows that they do not have respect for the Law, and are more likely to commit another crime than a person without a criminal past.  A repeat offender needs to be sentenced harsher than a youth with a clean record. The first step of the justice system relies on the police and then it is preceded by court. In many cases, if the youth is a first time offender, police officers may give out a warning, followed by a lecture on why what they did was wrong. However, if the same officer catches a previous offender committing a crime they will not be so kind, and will arrest the young offender (source-Canadian Journal of Criminology). During the court process, judges also take into account how dangerous the offender is (previous offences) in order to construct a punishment by which the youth will learn their lesson and move away from crime. In a 2008 National Justice Survey, results showed that 75% of people who participated thought that jail should be saved for violent youths, or repeat offenders. These results make the point clear. Previous offenders are considered dangerous, and harder to reintegrate into society. By realizing this, the next approach is to increase the consequences for repeat offenders in order to sway the youth away from a life of crime. A separate reason to give only youths who are repeat offenders jail time is the cost of incarnation. For one youth to spend a year imprisoned, it can cost the government up to $35000 (source-The Globe and Mail, National). This factor makes the justice system send only violent, repeat offenders who need serious help to jail. When repeatedly breaking the law, the final outcome is a law system that is not on the offender’s side.

In order to create a fair sentencing system, a factor that needs to be accounted for is the personal situation of the youth offender. Elements that contribute to this are the offender’s mental health, financial wellbeing and home life. A young girl with a serious mental handicap was arrested under the care of welfare services. She was found uttering threats to the services helpers. In court, not too long after, she was sentenced with a judicial reprimand, (requires nothing more of the offender) due to her mental condition (source- Canadian Journal of Criminology). If a youth is mentally challenged, they do not have the same decision skills, or reasoning skills as that of a person with full mental health. This shows that the mentally handicapped individual needs different treatment than that of another person. The situation at home needs to be carefully taken into the process of sentencing, A study done by the Canadian Journal of Criminology shows that when deciding on whether or not to arrest a youth, officers look at the youth’s personal history and when the youth is sentenced, judges make sure the youth won’t be abused. This is taken into affect because it has been proven, that if a youth is abused at home many times they will turn to a life of crime.  As well, while judging the youth, the judge works to ensure that the sentencing will not cause abuse at the offender’s home. Another reason why the judicial system should sentence people differently is their residential stability. It has been shown that a youth who does not have a reliable place to settle in is more likely to commit a crime (source- Canadian journal of Criminology and Criminal justice). The result of this is providing support for the youth in different ways, and sentencing youths differently. By taking personal circumstances into the judging of a youth, the young offender gains help well suited for their needs.

Another way of looking at this controversial issue to argue that two people who commit the same crime, should be tried and judged the exact same way. Everyone who is under the Canadian Youth Justice Act is a human being and a member of Canada. One could argue that these two people should be judged equally no matter their race, the color of their skin, or their gender. This paper maintains that this argument is not very strong. This counter argument focuses on equality and race while the main issues involve the severity of the crime, repeat offenses and mental handicap and the brain. Another problem with this argument is that every youth has different situations and learns differently.  If everyone was sentenced and taught in the same manner, many people would not be able learn what they need in order to return to society.  

 Justice Minister of Canada, the sentencing of youth offenders needs to be aligned in accordance with the way they need to be taught. A mentally challenged youth needs to be treated differently from an abused youth, who needs to be treated differently from a dangerous youth. Severity, previous offenses, and the personal life of an accused youth are all crucial considerations that need to be considered order to make a decision that is fair. Without including these factors into the sentencing process, it would make it much more difficult to reintroduce youth to society with a life not involving crime.   By focusing on these important considerations, the judicial system corrects the youth’s wrongs early and corrects learning before the brain fully developed to create a safer, crime free society.

Sincerely,

Braeden Kurchina