Latest Updates

About Youth Justice

Youth Criminal Justice Act

Research and Analysis

Funding Youth Justice

Partnership, Innovation and Awards

Information for the Public

For the media

Youth Justice Home

Information for the Public > Myths and Realities about Youth Justice

Myths and Realities about Youth Justice

Myth: Youth crime is on the rise
Reality: The youth crime rate has decreased over the past decade.

The media's tendency to focus on violent youth crime stories can contribute to a distortion of youth crime facts. An Ontario study found that 94%of youth crime stories in the media were about violent offences when less than 25%of Ontario's youth court cases actually involved violent crime.[1] Minor assaults account for more than half of the violent crimes committed by youth.

A similar American study conducted in 2000 by the advocacy group Building Blocks for Youth found that crime news on network TV increased 83% from 1990 to 1998. The crime rate dropped 20% during that period to its lowest level in 25 years. Yet polling showed two-thirds of people believed it was still on the rise.

Between 1991-92 and 2002-03, the total number of youth crime cases in Canada dropped by 20%.[2] In that same period, the number of crimes against property committed by youth fell a total of 47% to its lowest level in more than 25 years.[3]

Because the total population of Canadian youth age 14 to 17 is increasing slightly at the same time as the total number of youth crimes is decreasing, the youth crime rate is dropping in part due to demographics. Nevertheless it is a real and significant change.

Myth: Most youth crime involves violence
Reality: Around 75% of all youth crime is non-violent.

Violent youth crime was down by 2% in 2002.[4] Of the 84,592 youth cases heard in youth court in 2002-03, just under 75% involved non-violent offences such as mischief and theft. And minor assaults accounted for more than half of the violent crimes committed by youth.

Even though homicides and other serious crimes committed by youth are still very rare, they are almost always portrayed as a growing trend. In reality, the opposite is true. In 2002, there were 42 youths charged with homicide: seven fewer than the average over the past decade.[5]

Even with the most recent drop, the 2002 youth violent crime rate was still 7% higher than a decade ago. Still, the fact remains that young people age 12 to 17 are less likely to be charged with violent crimes than adults.

Myth: A "get tough" approach will reduce youth crime
Reality: Harsher criminal sanctions do not discourage youth from getting into trouble with the law.

The U.S. Surgeon General's recent study on youth violence concluded that boot camps, custodial programs with strict military-style rules, fail to make a positive difference and can actually increase the rate at which participants commit new crimes. [6] The same study found that youths transferred to adult criminal court are more likely to re-offend than young people who remain in juvenile courts.

In 2002, the federal government released a review of 111 studies on the effects of criminal justice sanctions on more than 442,000 offenders. It found that harsher punishments had no deterrent effect on repeat offences. In fact, it suggested that punishment caused a 3% increase in recidivism among all groups of offenders, including youth.[7]

Another consideration is that a significant number of youth inmates have mental health problems and require treatment, not punishment.

Myth: The YCJA lets youth commit serious crimes and get off with a slap on the wrist
Reality: One of the principles of the YCJA is that the most severe penalties be reserved for the most serious crimes.

According to a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, released in 1997, the justice system treats youth more harshly than adults. At the time, there were about 3.5 times more adults charged than youths for all offences, while for violent crimes the adult-to-youth ratio was more than five times greater. Despite this ratio, there were more youth incarcerated than adults.[8]

In 2002-03, custody (secure and open) was ordered after a guilty verdict in 27% of all youth court cases, while probation was the most serious sentence in 57% of guilty cases. For serious violent offences, custody is ordered much more often after a finding of guilt. For example, 19 youths were found guilty of homicide in Canada in 2002-03. Secure custody was ordered in 14 of the cases, and open custody in three. Four out of five youth found guilty of attempted murder were ordered to serve time in jail.

It is true that most young people found guilty of an offence serve their sentence in the community. The YCJA encourages proportionality and requires that the punishment be appropriate to the offence. Youth that commit less serious crimes may be able to receive the help they need and be able to make amends with the victim and the community in a less formal matter. Less serious crimes can often be dealt with effectively through a warning, caution or a community-based program.

Myth: Under the YCJA, police can't charge first offenders and must let them off with a warning
Reality: The police can charge first time offenders and hold them accountable in a variety of ways.

The new law puts more tools into police officers' hands. They can and will charge first time offenders under the YJCA but they now have clearer legislative direction and more options available to them in determining how best to intervene. The police are encouraged to use extrajudicial measures (non-court responses to youth crime) with youth who have committed their first non-violent offence in an effort to hold them accountable and promote their rehabilitation. But if an officer decides that charges should be laid against a youth, they can do so.[9]

Myth: The only way that youth will learn their lesson is by serving jail time.
Reality: The best combination for youth is to focus on accountability, rehabilitation and repairing the damage done.

It is easy to forget that the accountability expected of adults cannot be expected of youth. The most effective way to serve the community and the offender is to realize that young people are still developing their skills in judgement and foreseeing the consequences of their actions.

So while youth need to be accountable for their actions they also need support and firm guidance to allow them to make responsible, fully informed decisions. While holding young people accountable for their actions may sometimes require that they spend time in custody, these youth will eventually return to their communities. We need to also focus on their education, rehabilitation, skills training and employability so they can become productive and contributing members of their communities.

Long jail sentences do not reduce youth crime. The punitive approach to justice has resulted in the U.S. becoming the largest jailer per capita in the western world. If incarceration was an effective deterrent, the U.S. would have one of the world's lowest crime rates. Retribution by the criminal justice system has been demonstrated to be an ineffective deterrent. [10]

Myth: The YCJA ignores victims
Reality: Under the YCJA, the interests and needs of victims are clearly recognized and the role of victims at different stages of the youth justice process is specified.

The YCJA encourages the use of extrajudicial measures (non-court responses to youth crime). Nearly all of the young people who participated in extrajudicial measures (known as alternative measures) programs under the Young Offenders Act (YOA) successfully completed the required measure. These measures often require the youth to repair the harm done to the victim, for example by paying reparations or otherwise making restitution.

Under the YCJA, victims are given information about court proceedings and have the opportunity to participate. Victims also have a right of access to youth court records and a right to be informed of how an offence was dealt with.

Community-based policing and community oriented responses are often the most meaningful for families and victims. [11]

Myth: the new Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) is no different than the YOA.
Reality: The YCJA is a new approach to youth crime and is a significant departure from the YOA.

The YOA did not identify the principal goals of the system and contained inconsistent and competing principles. The YCJA provides guidance to courts on the priority that is to be given to key principles. For example, the new Act aims to provide fairer sentencing for youth by outlining a clear statement of the principles underlying sentencing for youth crimes.

While the YOA allowed for alternatives to custody, the YCJA encourages them in the form of extrajudicial measures.

Under the YOA, transfer hearings were sometimes held to transfer underage accused to the adult justice system. They were frequently a cause of unfairness, delay and complexity in the youth system. The YCJA eliminated this lengthy process by empowering youth courts to impose an adult sentence when appropriate.

Under the YOA, Canada came to have one of the highest youth incarceration rates in the Western world, including the U.S.[12] The YCJA addresses this issue by reserving custody mainly for violent or repeat offenders. There was no such restriction under the YOA.

The YOA failed to ensure effective reintegration of a young person after release from custody, while the YCJA includes many provisions to assist a young person's reintegration into the community.

There are many areas where the new Act improves on the weaknesses and draws on the strengths of the YOA. Along with major non-legislative support, such as effective programs, research, and partnerships with various youth-related sectors, the YCJA is a significant step forward.

Myth: The YCJA lowers the age at which a young person may be subject to an adult sentence
Reality: The age at which a young person may be subject to adult sentences has NOT changed.

The new law does not lower the age at which a youth may be subject to an adult sentence. For nearly 100 years, under both the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the YOA, the law allowed young persons who are 14 years of age or older to receive an adult sentence. The age remains at 14 under the YCJA.

i>Myth: There is little federal funding available for the implementation of the YCJA and the Youth Justice Renewal Initiative
Reality: More than $950 million has been made available over five years.

The new law is a cornerstone of the Youth Justice Renewal Initiative, and several federal funding programs and agreements help governmental and non-governmental organizations across the country reach the goals of the YCJA and the broader Initiative. These include:

• Long term funding agreements with provincial and territorial governments to contribute to youth justice system costs. More than $950 million in federal money is available to the jurisdictions from 2000 to 2005 through these agreements, which target services and programs most likely to support objectives of the initiative;
• Additional funding for jurisdictions to implement the new Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) order, a special sentence for serious violent offenders suffering from mental or psychological disorders. Agreements have been reached with the provinces and territories, involving a total of $48 million for 2002-2007; and
• Through the Youth Justice Renewal Fund, funding for projects and services that contribute to the achievements of the broad goals of the initiative. Provincial and territorial ministries responsible for youth justice as well as non-governmental organizations active and/or interested in youth justice issues may apply for grants and contributions through this fund.

Myth: The YCJA is too costly, cumbersome and complex
Reality: The YCJA provides the framework for a fairer and more effective justice system.

Youth crime is not a problem with a single cause. Some minor crimes are nothing more than young people testing the limits of what society will tolerate. But many, according to a major federal study in 2000, are committed by "troubled youths from troubled families. Their backgrounds tend to be characterized by violence, substance abuse, inconsistent parenting, weak attachment to family and school, poverty, poor housing and under-resourced neighbourhoods."[13]

The YCJA allows the youth justice system to respond in a fair and appropriate manner across the broad spectrum of youth crime. The law puts tools in the hands of police officers, Crown prosecutors, defence counsel, judges and other youth justice professionals. There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to youth crime.

The YCJA itself is not costly. It encourages a community-based response to youth crime. The alternative - simply locking up all young offenders - places a financial burden on the state and taxpayers which may last for many years longer than an initial investment in turning the young person's life around while they are still capable of change.

Incarceration of a youth costs $250 a day[14]. Many programs that assist youth in the community are far less expensive than incarceration. The most expensive option is NOT to invest in our young people by simply writing them off as criminals incapable of rehabilitation.

[1] Ministry of Attorney General, B.C. "Youth Crime," B.C. Crime Trends, (November 1998)

[2] Statistics Canada; Youth court statistics, 2002/03. Ottawa, (March 2004)

[3] Ibid

[4] Statistics Canada (June 2004)

[5] Ibid

[6] Department of Health and Human Services (2001). U.S.: Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General

[7] Smith P., Goggin. C. and Gaudreau, P. (2002). The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences. (User Report 2001-2002). Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

[8] Canadian Association for Adolescent Health: Families & Health, September 2000, Volume 13

[9] Youth Criminal Justice Act, section 6

[10] Marty Price, "Crime and Punishment: Can Mediation Produce Restorative Justice for Victims and Offenders?"

[11] Nicolas Bala, Faculty of Law, Queens University, "The Politics of Responding to Youth Crime: Myths and Realities", Child and Family Canada, Fall 1996.

[12] Statistics Canada (2000). Youth Court Statistics, 1998-1999. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

[13] A Strategy for the Renewal of Youth Justice"; Response to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs' Report on the Young Offenders Act; Department of Justice; May 12, 1998

[14] Canadian Association for Adolescent Health: Families & Health, September 2000, Volume 13