style="font-size:15px;"> Doob, Anthony, Voula Marinos, and Kimberly N. Varma. 1995. Youth Crime and the Youth Justice System in Canada: A Research Perspective. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto.*
“Evil Must Be Taken Into Account.” 2009. Globe and Mail, July 29.
“Man, 20, Guilty of 2nd-Degree Murder in Jane Creba Shooting.” 2008. CBC.ca, December 8.
Manson, Allan. 2001. The Law of Sentencing. Toronto: Irwin Law.*
“Regina Teen Sentenced as Adult in Good Samaritan Killing.” 2008. Globe and Mail, November 28.
Rushowy, Kristin. 2007. “Last Spring’s Slaying of Jordan Manners, 15, Was Catalyst for Change at Troubled High School.” Toronto Star, December 26.
Sachs, Susan. 2008. “Report on Young Offenders Spurs Controversy in France.” Globe and Mail, December 15.
Seymour, Andrew. 2008. “Man Found Guilty of First-Degree Murder in Oatway Killing.” Ottawa Citizen, November 28.
“Sleight-of-Hand at the Supreme Court.” 2008. Globe and Mail, May 17.
Small, Peter. 2009. “‘No Sex Until Deed Done,’ Rengel Trial Told.” Toronto Star, March 20.
Sprott, Jane B. 1996. “Understanding Public Views of Youth Crime and the Youth Justice System.” 38 Canadian Journal of Criminology 271.*
_____. 1998. “Understanding Public Opposition to a Separate Youth Justice System.” 44 Crime and Delinquency 399.*
“Steinke Found Guilty of First-Degree Murder.” 2008. Globe and Mail, December 5.
“Teen Gets Maximum Sentence for Medicine Hat Killings.” 2007. CBC.ca, November 8.
“Teen Guilty of 1st-Degree Murder in Death of Stefanie Rengel, 14.” 2009. CBC.ca, March 20.
“Teen Sentenced as Adult in Michael Oatway Murder.” 2009. CTV.ca, February 12.
Chapter 3
Bullying:
Degrees of Harm
Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behaviour that involves an imbalance of power between the bully and victim. It is an attempt to inflict intentional harm on another and it may occur repeatedly. Often that attempt is carried out in a series of acts, such as harassment on the Internet (cyberbullying). Often, the acts of harassment are carried out by a group formed for that purpose. The end goal, as noted, is to inflict harm — to see the target hurt.
Bullying often takes place at school as a manifestation of problems germinating both outside and inside the school. A large number of youth are bullied: estimates indicate that one in five Canadian children are victims of bullying, and one in twelve students find themselves harassed on an ongoing basis. (http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/child-abuse-statistics.html)
Most young bullies are never brought before the criminal justice system. Some become known to parents and school authorities, who implement their own sense of what “justice” requires — such as an open assembly discussion or even school expulsion. Also, more family doctors (and pediatricians) are becoming involved in preventive bully action plans.
The school system itself has on occasion been implicated in bullying behaviour — such as at sporting events where some players see an open invitation to punish the opposition. The line between what society will permit and what the criminal law will condemn can be crossed. We will discuss one high school sporting event that resulted in the death of a player. The central question then became: What was the role of the criminal law where the act, resulting in death, took place on a playing field during a school event?
Other laws have been enacted that are designed to curb young offender behaviour, such as Ontario’s Parental Responsibility Act. This act states that under certain circumstances, parents of young offenders who (often as part of a group) have damaged or destroyed property may be taken to small claims court and held accountable up to $6,000. We will set out similar laws in other jurisdictions and the measure of their effectiveness in combating youth crime.
Among the questions raised in this chapter are:
Is there always a rational explanation for bullying?
How do students respond to bullying among classmates?
What is the responsibility of parents for their children’s delinquency?
Should cyberbullying be a criminal offence?
The Murder of Reena Virk
On November 14, 1997, Reena Virk, age fourteen, was lured to a quiet park in Victoria, British Columbia, where she was swarmed, brutally beaten, and killed by a group of seven girls and one boy, aged between fourteen and sixteen. Her body was found a week later submerged in water under a bridge. The cause of death, according to the pathologist, was not drowning. Rather, it was the beating and the injuries she had sustained, which the pathologist testified, were similar to “those which would result from a car being driven over a body.”
The autopsy was able to determine that Virk had been kicked in the head eighteen times and beaten about the body so severely that tissue was crushed between the abdomen and the backbone. The attack itself came in two stages. First was a severe beating from which Virk tried to flee. She was caught and dragged underneath a bridge. There, the second phase of the attack took place. Her forehead was burned with a cigarette. Attempts were made to cut her hair. Her head was held in the water, and there was evidence that one of the group delivered a karate chop to Virk’s windpipe.
Reasons for the Attack
It was clear that some of the attackers were angry with Virk. One teen claimed that Virk had spread rumours about her. Another said that Virk had sex with her boyfriend. But, for all the investigation and the trials that later occurred, there was no single reason for the swarming. It is questionable that Virk willingly would have gone to meet the other teens if she had reason to fear for her safety.
The Leaders of the Attack and Their Trials
According to the evidence, fifteen-year-olds Kelly Ellard and Warren Glowatski led the attack. Both were bound over to adult court for trial. Neither had any long-term relationship with Virk; based on the evidence, their relationship with Virk could be called brief, at most. Glowatski was tried first, and he was found guilty of second-degree murder. He was given a life sentence with the possibility of parole no earlier than seven years thereafter.
Glowatski had been abandoned by his father, and his mother was an alcoholic. He lived with a friend and was described as “mean,” especially when he was drunk. Glowatski described himself as a gang member. He was called upon to testify at Ellard’s trial, but he refused to do so. His reason: His sentence was under appeal. And perhaps more to the point, he feared for his own life if he testified.
Ellard was seventeen at the time of her first trial, which concluded two years after the fatal attack on Virk, and was found guilty of second-degree murder. She was given a prison sentence in April 2000 that made her eligible for parole in five years. At the time of sentencing, the trial Justice Nancy Morrison said:
Kelly, you are young and intelligent and you have a wonderful family.… They believe in you and I can only say that you should
