regard, Justice Abella, before reciting the then new penalties, especially for violent youth crimes, noted the purpose of the YOA. She referred to section 3(1) of that act:
It is hereby recognized and declared that
(a) while young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their contraventions [violations] …
(c) young persons who commit offences require supervision, discipline and control, but, because of their state of dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have special needs and require guidance and assistance.
Justice Abella, again speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, found in the current law, in section 3(1) of the YCJA, a carry-forward of that legislative purpose:
The following principles apply in this Act:
(b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults and emphasize the following:
(i) rehabilitation and reintegration,
(ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity,
(iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected.
Justice Abella wrote that “section 3(2), moreover, states that the YCJA ‘shall be liberally construed so as to ensure that young persons are dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in subsection (1).’” She added, “The preamble [of the YCJA] recognizes society’s ‘responsibility to address the developmental challenges and the needs of young persons and to guide them into adulthood; encourages guidance and support; and seeks effective rehabilitation and reintegration.’”
In summary, the facts seem to be that Parliament, at one and the same time, chose to make the penalties, especially for violent serious crimes of young offenders, subject to greater penalties while also keeping as a central purpose of the law the principle of diminished culpability of young offenders.
Police Presence in High Schools
In September 2008, a new program began in Toronto. A total of thirty police officers were assigned to thirty different high schools across the city (twenty-two in the Toronto District School Board and eight in the Toronto Catholic District School Board). Some critics predicted the worst. One public school trustee said, “To have them walking the halls and wearing guns in high schools, where guns are a problem, is mind-blowing to me.”
But the critics, it seems, were wrong. At the high schools with a full-time police presence, attendance is up and suspensions and criminal charges are down.
Staff Sergeant Sharon Davis, who coordinates police officers in the School Resource Officer program, discussed the importance of the drop in criminal charges. She said, “Anybody who ends up needing to be arrested — that’s a failure. Once young people enter the criminal justice system, all studies show that their chances of success in life — finishing school, having a good job — are diminished.”
The success of the program has been in large part due to the good relationships that have been established between the police officers and the students. Officers have made an effort to get to know the students and become a part of the school communities.
The guiding principle has been that dealing with minor problems by means of warnings and no-nonsense advice can be more productive than dragging young people “into the jaws of the justice system.”
Numerous other Canadian cities and jurisdictions have comparable programs (Appleby 2009a).
The Public’s Response
When the police program in Toronto high schools was reported in the Globe and Mail, a number of people posted comments on the newspaper’s website. Most expressed support for the program, but others expressed serious concerns. A sampling of opinions follows:
“I am all for this. I am a high school teacher and the Calgary Board of Education had an officer in each of their high schools when I taught with them several years ago.… Students were often in the constable’s office, chatting, getting advice, etc. I saw a marked change in how the students perceived the police and their role.”
“If I were a student going to one of these schools, I would be happy knowing that there was someone to help and possibly protect me.”
“What has happened to our society that we require police officers in school?”
“Perhaps security guards at half the cost or more would make this a more effective program. Seemingly, it is primarily security that the police presence provides.”
“This program shows students that cops are just regular folks and can have a positive impact on lives.… No one is expecting that this program will suddenly make crime disappear from schools, but if it steers some folks away from bad choices and makes others feel safer coming to school, which early results suggest are the outcomes, then it’s an excellent program.”
“This should be seen as a temporary add-on but far more focus should be put into finding solutions to the cause of the issue of ‘dangerous’ schools. Hopefully these officers are first taking many courses prior to providing advice to kids. Placing individuals in positions of authority does not [guarantee] that they have all the answers for these kids (or correct ones).”
“When I went to high school 10–15 years ago, we had many, many violent incidents occurring. We were on the news three times in my grade 9 year! The following year we had a new principal who came in, expelled all the troublemakers and brought in a police officer to walk the halls once or twice a week. Not to mention the other police who would occasionally drive through our parking lot talking to students.… Our school cleaned itself up within a year, essentially ridding itself of a gang problem. The fact that police were there when this occurred cannot be coincidence.”
“Hopefully by being proactive rather than reactive, the police presence may help some kids who would go bad from doing so and, in any case, provide a safer classroom.”
“This [program] makes a big difference to kids when the only time they usually see police is in squad cars or getting out to arrest someone.”
“If the Toronto school board were serious about reducing violence in schools, it would spend more money on special education, psychologists and social workers.”
A police officer is a presence. How that person is viewed depends not only on how he or she sees their duty but also on how students, teachers, administrators, and parents view the police officer.
Youth or Adult Sentence for a Young Killer
On September 21, 2006, twenty-three-year-old Michael Oatway was sitting in the back of an Ottawa-Carleton bus, listening to music on his iPod. Suddenly, he was surrounded by S.M. and three friends. S.M. (not further identified because he was seventeen at the time) demanded, at knifepoint, that Oatway give him his iPod. Oatway refused, and was fatally stabbed.
S.M. was found guilty of first-degree murder on November 28, 2008, following a three-week trial. Following the verdict, prosecutors said they would be seeking an adult sentence for S.M.
