ADDRESSING CONCERNS OF YOUTH JUSTICE

This paper was written March 28, 2006 for my UFV Crim 210 (Youth Crime and the Youth Justice System in Canada) course, taught by Jesse Cale.

=====================================================================

INTRODUCTION

This paper will be addressing the concerns of the youth criminal justice system in two parts. The first part will look at R. v. Jeremy Wade Vojkovic (2004) and the second part will address the concerns as to the sentencing aspects of R. v. Vojkovic (2004). And as Vojkovic came under the Young Offenders Act (YOA) this paper will compare the difference between the YOA and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). At the time of the crime Jeremy Wade Vojkovic was fifteen years old. Crown Counsel had successfully transferred Vojkovic to adult court to face the charge of first-degree murder.

THE OFFENCE

On November 12, 2002 Jeremy Wade Vojkovic, age 15, entered the property of Jim and Colleen Findlay. While Vojkovic was looking in the barn, the victim, Colleen Findlay arrived home from dropping her daughter off at school. When she entered the barn she surprised the accused who then overpowered her. Vojkovic choked her until she passed out then removed her glasses. He then placed duct tape over the victim’s eyes and mouth. Vojkovic then bound the victim’s wrists and ankles and then took her to the loft and restrained the victim to a two-by-four rafter. After asking the victim some questions Vojkovic then went into the victim’s house and looked for property to steal (R. v. Vojkovic (2004)).

While in the house Vojkovic found some money, a case of beer, some cigars and some fireworks and a set of car keys. Vojkovic then went back outside and checked out the car. He then returned to the house and gathered up the items and placed them in the car (R. v. Vojkovic (2004)).

Vojkovic then returned to the barn, cut the tape off of the victim and raped her several times. Following this, Vojkovic then took the victim into the master bedroom of the house and placed the victim on the bed. The victim’s eyes and mouth were still taped. Vojkovic raped the victim again, then looked around the house some more then returned to the bedroom where he had placed the victim (R. v. Vojkovic (2004)).

Vojkovic then cut the victim’s throat three times then found some gasoline and poured gas on the victim as well as the house. Vojkovic then lit the house on fire in the hopes of covering his tracks then stole the victim’s car, went to a local mall and picked up some friends (R. v. Vojkovic (2004)).

Vojkovic had been driving around in the victim’s car for about 12 hours with a group of friends, drinking the beer and smoking the cigars when the police pulled the car over and took him into custody (R. v. Vojkovic (2004)).

THE SENTENCE (YOA)

As an adult Vojkovic was sentenced to life in prison. However, as Vojkovic was 15 at the time of the offence, section 745.5 of the Criminal Code stipulated that eligibility for parole was between five and seven years. The trial judge, Justice J. Williams set the time of parole eligibility at seven years (R. v. Vojkovic (2004)).

According to the psychologist and psychiatric reports Vojkovic is a dangerous sex offender, essentially untreatable and would present an unacceptable risk to the public (R. v. Vojkovic (2004)). Also at the time of the offence Vojkovic was facing a count of break and enter and was on supervision in the community on a form of bail release (R. v. Vojkovic (2004)).

THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT (YOA)

The Young Offenders Act created a juvenile justice system very differently from that which had prevailed under the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA). Whereas the JDA referred to delinquents as “mis-directed and misguided” children in need of “ aid, encouragement, help and assistance,” the YOA referred to young persons as in a “state of dependency” who have “special needs and require guidance and assistance” as well as “supervision, discipline and control”.

More specifically, the YOA introduced new principles to the juvenile justice system that gave emphasis to youth responsibility, protection of society, special needs, alternative measures, legal rights and freedoms (Bell J. Sandra, Young Offenders and Juvenile Justice: A Century After the Fact, p. 50, 52. 2003).

One part of the YOA as we saw above in R. v. Vojkovic (2004) allows for leniency even in the most horrific of violent crimes. Section 745.5 of the Criminal Code says that “At the time of the sentencing under section 745.1 of an offender who is convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder and who was under the age of sixteen at the time of the commission of the offence, the judge who presided at the trial of the offender or, if that judge is unable to do so, any judge of the same court, may, having regard to the age and character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission and to the recommendations, if any, made pursuant to section 745.3, by order, decide the period of imprisonment the offender is to serve that is between five and seven years without eligibility for parole, as the judge deems fit in the circumstances” (Martin’s Annual Criminal Code, 2000).

It also allows the violent offender, although transferred to adult court to serve a portion of his or her time in a Juvenile Secured Custody Centre. At trial in R. v. Vojkovic (2004) Justice J. Williams stated that “section 16.2 of the Young Offenders Act requires the court, where a young person has been proceeded against in ordinary court by reason of transfer, to make an order as to the placement of the convicted person.

The Young Offenders Act enumerates a series of criteria to be considered: the safety of the young person; the safety of the public; the young person’s accessibility to family; the safety of other persons if the young person were to be held in custody in a place of custody for young persons; whether the young person would have a detrimental influence on other young persons if the young person were to be held in custody in a place of custody for young persons; the young person’s level of maturity; the availability and suitability of treatment, educational and other resources that would be provided to the young person in a place of custody for young persons and in a place of custody for adults; the young person’s prior experiences and behavior while in detention or custody; the recommendations of the provincial director and representatives of the provincial and federal correctional facilities, and any other factors the court considers relevant.”

Justice Williams placed Vojkovic at the Burnaby Youth Secure Custody Centre and ordered Vojkovic to serve at that location until the age of twenty, which at that time, according to the custody order Vojkovic would be transferred to the Regional Health Centre.

THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT (YCJA)

The Youth Criminal Justice Act has maintained the principles introduced by the YOA, but the way in which it has done so creates a very different justice system both in terms of its structure and its focus. First, the crime control thrust introduced to the system by YOA amendments are maintained, but there are a number of important differences in how this has been accomplished (Bell, p. 61. 2003).

Unlike the JDA and the YOA, the YCJA is explicit about the purpose and objectives of the juvenile justice system. The YCJA specifies clearly that the purpose of a youth (no longer defined as juvenile) justice system is protection of the public through crime prevention, rehabilitation, and meaningful consequences (s. 3(1)(a)(i-iii)) (Bell, p. 61. 2003).

So, while maintaining the JDA principles of rehabilitation, this is to be undertaken for the sole purpose of protection of the public in the context of “meaningful consequences” rather than as an end in itself. Further, it is no longer sufficient to establish, as the YOA did, that youth will be held responsible, now the system will emphasize “fair and proportional accountability” (s. 3(1)(b)(ii)) (Bell, p. 61. 2003).

As well, there have been other changes, such as the introduction of sentence principles, that will have a crime control impact on the system and on youth charged with “serious” and violent offences (Bell, p. 61. 2003).

SUMMARY OF THE YOA AND YCJA

The principles of juvenile justice under the YOA were accountability, protection of society, special needs of youth, alternative measures, due process rights of young persons, minimal interference with freedom, and parental responsibility (Bell, p. 65. 2003). Under the YCJA the new aspects of youth justice are reintegration; meaningful consequences; timely intervention; parental, family, and community involvement in rehabilitation and reintegration process; victim rights; reparation; and a recognition of special needs groups (Bell, p. 65. 2003).

CONCLUSION

Both the YOA and the current YCJA are nothing more than sugar coated. There is no difference between these two pieces of legislation with the exception of their names. For example, section 745.5 of the Criminal Code in the Martin’s 2006 edition has not been repealed. Further section 76(1) of the YCJA is the same as section 16.2 of the YOA. So Vojkovic would have been given the same sentence under the YCJA has he received under the YOA.

There is something very wrong with a justice system when a young person like Jeremy Vojkovic can commit a horrific violent act and get away with it. Both section 76 (1) of the YCJA and section 745 of the Criminal Code must be repealed! Once a young person has been transferred to adult court he or she should be treated and sentenced as an adult irregardless of their age at the time of the offence. For the justice system to work more effectively, the YCJA must adapt and apply the crime control model. Further, the rights of the victims must be first and foremost.

REFERENCES

Bell J. Sandra, (2003) Young Offenders and Juvenile Justice: A Century After the Fact. Second Edition

R. v. Jeremy Wade Vojkovic (2004)