The Young Offenders Act (YOA) was an act of the Parliament of Canada, granted Royal Assent in 1984, that regulated the criminal prosecution of Canadian youths. The act was repealed in 2003 with the passing of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The act established the national age of criminal responsibility at 12 years old, and said that youths can only be prosecuted if they break a law of the Criminal Code (previously, youths could be prosecuted or punished solely on the grounds that it was in the youth's "best interests").
The act also indicated that the rights established in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to youths as well.
Controversy dogged the act for many years. Many felt that the act's limit on a three-year detention sentence for youths was overly lax, and allowed youths to get unreasonably light sentences for murder or sexual assault. This maximum was repeatedly increased, until in 1996 it was extended to a maximum of 10 years. That same year a provision was also made to allow 16-year-olds to be tried as adults in certain cases. Critics contended that this was "too harsh," as it made youths possible victims of life sentences.
The act also drew much criticism from the public for not charging young offenders under the age of 12 years, and for banning publication of the identities of youths who commit criminal acts, contending that the number of violent crimes committed by youths has dramatically increased, as have the number of repeat young offenders, since the act was passed. The demands by the Canadian public for changes for the better in dealing with youth crime, particularly in the wake of the beating and attempted murder in 1999 of then-15-year-old Jonathan Wamback in Newmarket, Ontario by a gang of teenagers, led to the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to replace the YOA.
The YOA replaced the earlier Juvenile Delinquents Act enacted in 1908.
Famous quotes containing the words young and/or act:
“Oh who is that young sinner with the handcuffs on his wrists?
And what has he been after that they groan and shake their fists?
And wherefore is he wearing such a conscience-stricken air?
Oh they’re taking him to prison for the colour of his hair.”
—A.E. (Alfred Edward)
“But the whim we have of happiness is somewhat thus. By certain valuations, and averages, of our own striking, we come upon some sort of average terrestrial lot; this we fancy belongs to us by nature, and of indefeasible rights. It is simple payment of our wages, of our deserts; requires neither thanks nor complaint.... Foolish soul! What act of legislature was there that thou shouldst be happy? A little while ago thou hadst no right to be at all.”
—Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881)