The current study reviews the personal characteristics of 32 consecutive admissions to a secure custody centre in one southwest Ontario jurisdiction under the Young Offenders Act. Results indicated that there was considerable variability amongst the group regarding court history and the seriousness of the charge on which committal was made. Background history data suggested that the problems of youths committed to secure custody reflect considerable difficulties within families and school. The discussion questions whether the youths in this group are better served through the dispositions emphasizing custody-deterrence or rehabilitation-treatment. Implications for young offender policy are also presented.
References
1.
McConvilleBJ, BalaNMC. Children's rights: for or against treatment. Can Ment Health1975; 33(4): 2–5.
2.
WarrenMQ. Classification of offenders as an aid to efficient management and effective treatment. J Crim Law, Criminol Police Sci1971; 62: 234–258.
3.
LeonJL. The development of Canadian juvenile justice: a background for reform. Osgoode Hall Law Journal1977; 15(1): 71–106.
4.
ThomsonG.Commentary on the Young Offenders Act. Provincial Judges Journal1983; 7(2): 27–34.
5.
FelstinerJ.Some observations on practice and procedure under the Young Offenders Act. 1985.
6.
ReidSA, Reitsma-StreetM.Assumptions and implications of the new Canadian legislation for young offenders. Can Criminol Forum1984; 7: 1–19.
7.
LeschiedAW, JaffePG. Implications of the Young Offenders Act in modifying the juvenile justice system: some early trends. In: BalaN, LilliesH, eds. Young offenders service.Toronto: Butterworths, 1985.
8.
LeschiedAW, JaffePG. Impact of the Young Offenders Act on court dispositions: a comparative analysis. Can J Criminol1987; 29(4): 421–430.
9.
GaborP, GreenI, McCormickP.The Young Offenders Act in Alberta: changes in services during the first year. Social Worker1986; 54: 4.
10.
LeschiedAW, GendreauP.The declining role of rehabilitation in Canadian juvenile justice: implications of underlying theory in the Young Offenders Act. Can J Criminol1986; 28(3): 315–322.
11.
KrisbergB, SchwartzIM, LitskyP, The watershed of juvenile justice reform. Crime and Delinquency1986; 32(1): 5–38.
12.
BishopD.Deterrence: a panel analysis. Justice Q1984; 1(3): 311–328.
13.
DichiaraA, GalliherJY. Thirty years of deterrence research: characteristics, causes and consequences. Contemp Crisis1984; 8(3): 243–263.
14.
Rae-GrantN.Arresting the vicious cycle: care and treatment of adolescents displaying the Ovinnik syndrome. Can Psychiatr Assoc J1978; 23(1): 22–40.
15.
ThompsonAH. Young offender, child welfare, and mental health caseload commonalities. Can J Criminol1988; 30(2): 135–144.
16.
GendreauPG, RossRR. Revivification of rehabilitation. Justice Q1987; 4(3): 349–408.
17.
LeschiedAW, AustinGA, JaffePG. Recidivism rates of special needs youths. Can J Behav Sci1988; (In Press).
18.
GaborP, GreenI, McCormickP.The Young Offenders Act in Alberta: changes in services during the first year. Social Worker1986; 54(4).
19.
AllenFA. The decline of the rehabilitative ideal: penal policy and social purpose.New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
