Column: Why dangerous deeds earn kids no prison time;

Column: Why dangerous deeds earn kids no prison time;
Date: May 4, 2007 10:29 AM
PUBLICATION: The Province
DATE: 2007.05.04
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: A4
COLUMN: Joey Thompson
BYLINE: Joey Thompson
SOURCE: The Province
WORD COUNT: 493

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Why dangerous deeds earn kids no prison time; New act allows judges to
jail youths only if they're violent

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Thankfully, no one was hurt when 16-year-old C.D. and a buddy doused the
cab of a $25,000 truck with gas, tossed in a canister of propane for
good measure and set it ablaze.

Ditto for C.D.K. The young offender was lucky he didn't kill or maim
someone when he fled police during a half-hour pedal-to-the-metal chase
through crowded city streets, running red lights, careening through
traffic and swerving to duck oncoming semi-trailers.

Most Canadians would likely consider the teens' actions violent, and
thus deserving of a stint in jail. But the Youth Criminal Justice Act
doesn't see it that way, Canada's top court ruled some time ago.

Under the YCJA, the youths could have terrorized residents with non-stop
arsons and repeated reckless flights from police, and as long as no one
was hurt, they weren't violent and so could not be locked up.

The law's flaw -- a matter of great concern in legal circles -- is that
jail is an option only for youth convicted of a violent offence. And the
legislation drafters didn't intend "violent" to also mean "dangerous,"
the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in nixing C.D.'s and C.D.K.'s
six-month custodial terms.

The top court said under the act, a teen who causes, attempts to cause
or threatens to cause bodily harm has committed a violent act.

But a youth who does something that endangers or is likely to endanger
someone's life or safety -- arson and dangerous driving, for example --
or is likely to inflict severe psychological damage on someone, doesn't
fall under the violent category. Thus, jail is not an option.

That's not to say imprisonment is the be-all and end-all for all youth
in trouble: Dropping the uninitiated into a pack of skilled scoundrels
could seal their fate as criminals.

But the YCJA -- enacted to curb the "unacceptable level" of youths being
jailed under the previous Young Offenders Act -- swings too far the
other way. It allows judges very little discretion when determining
sentencing options -- custody, the law clearly states, can only be a
last resort.

"There are kids out there doing some pretty nasty things, and the YCJA
doesn't deal with them properly," a senior Vancouver prosecutor who
processes youth files said.

"The time frame for making a difference with young offenders is pretty
short. Some need to be incarcerated so we can reach them quickly, to
restrain, control, stabilize and, if possible, rehabilitate."

He said Crown is seeing fewer kids charged, tried or jailed. But he's
not buying the statistics that claim youth crime is down.

"Does it mean we're seeing less youth crime on our streets? I don't
think so. Kids are still getting into trouble. They're just not showing
up in the criminal-justice system."

It's supposed to mean young offenders are increasingly getting the
intervention they need from community-justice and youth-assistance
projects under the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

But I hear access to these programs varies widely from region to region
in B.C. Their success in tempering youth and stemming the tide of youth
violence and recklessness is even tougher to gauge -- not the best-case
scenario, considering public safety is the loser if these non-jail
initiatives aren't doing the trick.





The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !