Bluebulldog
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 139
- Points
- 680
Brihard,
You're right. I also work within the Justice system, albeit from the court side.
The intent of the YCJA, is and was good. By and large it does what it is supposed to. In areas like Danzig however it stands for You Cant Jail Anyone. People older than 18 exploit the YCJA to their benefit by using kids 12-17 to do much of their "dirty work". Perhaps scrapping it was a bit offside, but overhauling it where escalating offences carry greater penalites, with the proviso in the legislation to carry forward a record of a habitual offender past the age of 18, would be nice ( I know.....in an ideal world).
For a kid to be sent to a secure facility where you were, I would hate to think of the circumstances that eventually led them there.
I find your opening statement interesting.
There is a growing upswing in the number of females between the ages of 11-17 committing not only property crime, but violent crime as well. I see them at our courthouse every week. Most of the kids who come here ( mostly white, suburban types) are acutely aware that if they stand in front of the Judge and appear even a little repentant, the judge will have little choice but to give them community service hours, and probation. They then come to work for me working those hours off. There is no deterrent. I can genuinely say that 2 in 5 gets clued in. The others are usually so enamoured of the thug life, that the recitivism rate is pretty high, and we typically see them back over the course of their adolescence.
So scrapped? No, it actually does what it's intended most of the time. Overhauled? Absolutely....it has no teeth currently.
You're right. I also work within the Justice system, albeit from the court side.
The intent of the YCJA, is and was good. By and large it does what it is supposed to. In areas like Danzig however it stands for You Cant Jail Anyone. People older than 18 exploit the YCJA to their benefit by using kids 12-17 to do much of their "dirty work". Perhaps scrapping it was a bit offside, but overhauling it where escalating offences carry greater penalites, with the proviso in the legislation to carry forward a record of a habitual offender past the age of 18, would be nice ( I know.....in an ideal world).
For a kid to be sent to a secure facility where you were, I would hate to think of the circumstances that eventually led them there.
I find your opening statement interesting.
Brihard said:This fails to take into account the fact that the majority of youth crime is merely testosterone poisoning, and that they literally grow out of it as they get older.
There is a growing upswing in the number of females between the ages of 11-17 committing not only property crime, but violent crime as well. I see them at our courthouse every week. Most of the kids who come here ( mostly white, suburban types) are acutely aware that if they stand in front of the Judge and appear even a little repentant, the judge will have little choice but to give them community service hours, and probation. They then come to work for me working those hours off. There is no deterrent. I can genuinely say that 2 in 5 gets clued in. The others are usually so enamoured of the thug life, that the recitivism rate is pretty high, and we typically see them back over the course of their adolescence.
So scrapped? No, it actually does what it's intended most of the time. Overhauled? Absolutely....it has no teeth currently.