Teen admits to killing 9 year old boy on Manitoba reserve

Teen admits killing 9 year old boy on MB reserve

WINNIPEG - A Manitoba teen has admitted to slitting the throat of a nine-year-old boy he was babysitting on a remote reserve.

The 17-year-old pleaded guilty Friday to second-degree murder and will be sentenced this fall. Justice officials agreed not to seek an adult sentence in exchange for his admission of guilt.

Tristian Dunsford was killed on June 27, 2008 inside a home in Little Grand Rapids, about 280 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg. He suffered massive blood loss as a result of "sharp force trauma to the neck," according to police.

No other details have been presented to the court, including any motive for the slaying or what type of weapon was used.

The accused was set to begin a Queen’s Bench jury trial next month before striking the plea bargain.

Crown and defence lawyers have requested a pre-sentence report and forensic assessment based on the belief the youth suffers from mental-health issues. However, the teen is not seeking to avoid criminal responsibility based on any existing issues.

He now faces a maximum sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act of seven years custody and community supervision. An adult convicted of second-degree murder would face a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years.

There could be many factors which contributed to this crime. First of all, this teen was from a reserve, which usually offer little employment or recreational opportunities, leaving reservation teens restless and bored. They often are more likely to be influenced by deviant norms and values of their peers, due to the fact that their parents live in poverty. They may witness or experience abuse, witness substance abuse, are neglected, lack supervision or monitoring, parents lack involvement in their child's life, lack of encouragement, support, affection, nurturance, consistent discipline, etc. These are all risk factors for teens to become involved in delinquent and antisocial behaviours. This article is biased as it fails to mention anything about this teen's background and family life.  

Sentencing hearing ends for teen who killed mother and sister

Teen killer's family searches for answers

The aunt of a Manitoba teen who shot and killed two members of his family says she's disappointed at the lack answers she has about why he committed the murders.
The teen, who was 14 when he fatally shot his 43-year-old adoptive mother and five-year-old sister in a St. Lazare home three years ago, faced the final day of a multi-day sentencing hearing in a Brandon courtroom on Thursday.

'What was expressed in the courtroom for the past three or four days just adds to the confusion.'—Aunt of teen killer

The now 16-year-old pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder earlier this year. The Crown is seeking an adult sentence for him, which would mean he would spend 10 years behind bars.

The teen's aunt read an emotional victim impact statement in court, and talked about the unending grief her family members have faced as they try to come to terms with the murders. She stared directly at the youth as she spoke.
The teen claimed in prior hearings that he snapped and shot his mother because of long-term abuse he suffered at her hands.
The Crown disputed the abuse allegation, noting that after he was arrested the teen was photographed by police and had no marks or bruises on his body. The teen's family also denied any abuse took place.
During his testimony the teen could not explain why he shot his sister four times in the head. When asked by the Crown attorney, he broke down into uncontrollable sobs.
His aunt said the lack of an explanation from the teen creates more mystery and confusion for her family.
"What was expressed in the courtroom for the past three or four days just adds to the confusion," she said.
"We don't know what happened that day … my family, my brothers, nieces and nephews — my own children — will never know the truth."
The judge reserved his decision on sentencing, saying he would need about three weeks to consider whether an adult sentence is appropriate.

Jurors told of alleged confession against teen on trial for second degree murder

Court told of confession

A 19-year-old man on trial for the 2006 beating death of Spence Street resident Audrey Cooper confessed to a friend he urinated on her before she died, a court heard Thursday.

“He said he p---ed on her,” a then 13-year-old boy told police in a video statement played for jurors.

“He said he kicked her a couple of times and left and (three female co-accused) finished her off.”

The boy told police the male, charged with second-degree murder, and a female co-accused both told him of their involvement in the killing and said they were afraid of getting arrested.

“She was saying they were going to get caught but she didn’t say what she did,” the boy told police. “(The male accused) was trying to get her to keep quiet because she kept talking about it.”

Court heard police picked the boy up at school and interviewed him at the Public Safety Building after learning he may have had information about the killing.

“He related he’d like to co-operate as what they did was wrong,” Winnipeg Police Service Sgt. Dave Bessason told court. “The only concern he had was he wanted to be back in time for the school dance.”

The boy — now 17 and in custody on unspecified charges — told court last week he had no memory of discussing Cooper’s death with the accused or of his subsequent dealings with police.

The accused was one of four youths arrested in the killing of Cooper. Two girls, both 14 at the time of Cooper’s death, have since pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

A third girl, 12 at the time of the killing, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. She is expected to testify against the accused.

The Crown alleges the youths attacked Cooper on her porch after she returned home from a trip to a convenience store to buy a lottery ticket.

Cooper was beaten and stripped naked. She suffered more than 60 distinct injuries, including seven broken ribs, a punctured liver and a severed ear.

I would like to know more about the defence lawyer's arguments and statements and cross examination. It is skeptical though, that the boy stated last week that he had no memory of that conversation and now he says he does remember. To me, his testimony does not seem credible. 

Youth justice reforms are "regressive" and harmful for teens with mental illness

Youth Justice changes "regressive" -- Proposals bad for teens with mental illness

Mental health and youth advocates denounced yesterday the Conservative government's "regressive" bill to alter the Youth Criminal Justice Act, saying many of the proposed changes could result in more incarcerated youth with mental illnesses.
They also argue it would go against the principle of rehabilitating young people.
The testimony given at a justice committee hearing hinged on the case of Ashley Smith, a mentally ill 19-year-old from New Brunswick who was originally incarcerated for minor crimes and committed suicide in a prison cell in 2007.
Bernard Richard, New Brunswick's child and youth advocate, who wrote a report on Smith's death, told the committee teens who suffer from mental illnesses are especially vulnerable while incarcerated and often do not get the services they require while in prison.
"Ashley cried out for help and she became progressively worse while in contact with the system," said Richard. "There are thousands of young Canadians out there suffering from mental illness, from behaviour disorders, from addictions, who come in contact with the criminal justice system. They should be diverted, directed to treatment -not incarceration. Inevitably, incarceration makes their conditions worse."
Smith was originally jailed as a youth in New Brunswick and eventually moved to the adult system, until her death at Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont.
Richard told the committee how Smith's behaviour worsened to the point that she spent more than two-thirds of her time in prison in segregation for at least 23 hours a day.
She had 501 institutional charges and 70 criminal charges, with more than half laid at provincial jails, and 168 incidents of self-harm.
"The question should be, does our criminal justice system provide mental health treatment for youths like Ashley Smith? The answer
is a glaring no," Richard said after the meeting.

The bill proposes several changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), including simplifying and amending the rules for pretrial detention to include those charged with "serious crimes" -which carry sentences of five years or longer, requiring the Crown to seek adult sentences for some serious crimes such as murder and aggravated assault, and giving judges discretion on the publication of names of young offenders convicted of violent offences.

The bill would also add "deterrence and denunciation" to the sentencing principles, which some critics say is both ineffective and would take the focus off rehabilitation.
"I don't like the overall direction of the bill. I think it's too punitive," Richard said after his testimony. He also called the bill "regressive" and said any move to change the seven-year-old YCJA is "premature."
"I think that's embarrassing for the country, that we would be going in that direction at this time. What we need is a national mental health strategy both for youth and for adults in the criminal justice system," he said.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson vehemently defended his bill at a past committee meeting, saying the changes would only target "violent and repeat young offenders" under 18 years old.

"Canadians lose confidence in the youth justice system when sentences are insufficient to hold violent and repeat offenders accountable for their crimes," Nicholson said at the previous committee meeting held in May.
Still, opponents of the bill say that any changes will inevitably affect youth before and after incarceration, and what is most needed is rehabilitation, not harsher laws.
"We need to start looking at more prevention-based efforts, but in the case that young people do commit crimes and are serving a sentence, we need to provide appropriate means to reintegrate and that requires services," said Miguel Le-Blanc, executive director of the New Brunswick Association of Social Workers.
Liberal MP Brian Murphy said after committee that while the bill does make some positive changes to the YCJA-such as making it illegal for youth to serve time in adult institutions -it may go too far toward modelling the youth criminal system on the adult model.
He said he will also file a motion asking Nicholson to release the reports gathered at a series of round tables on youth crime and justice which were conducted across the country in 2008 but have not been seen by committee members.

I also think these changes are far too punitive, especially adding deterrence and denunciation. Deterrence does not work. Most criminals are impulsive, not rational, cost-benefit weighing actors. They do not consider the consequences of their actions or the prospect of prison. The emphasis for youth, should always be on rehabilitation and reintegration. Teens with mental illnesses should NOT be imprisoned. It will only worsen their condition. 

Changing youth crime act, will not solve any problems, especially when youth crime is declining

Changing youth crime act is about votes

The efforts of the minority Conservative government to buy votes with its get-tough-on-crime approach can only be described as unseemly when it comes to the proposal to alter the Youth Criminal Justice Act with a new bill.

The bill, named after the victim of a youth crime in Quebec in an effort to make it more appealing to the public, strikes at the heart of the success of the YCJA.

The intent of the proposed minority Conservative bill is to remove the focus on rehabilitation of youths to better protecting the public.

Critics are quite correct when they call this bill "regressive."

The Youth Criminal Justice Act, in its current form, was enacted in 2002 to replace the old Young Offenders Act. Its success can only be described as remarkable.

Conservatives may say it's a failure because youth crime is still around.

Youth crime will always be around. The question is whether we respond to it a with a measured and effective response -- as with the current YCJA -- or wish to return to using the justice system to further the amount of youth crime in Canada.

For the record, the YCJA is in no way soft on youth crime. The bill may not be perfect, but it does balance the need to separate young people who need to be set on the straight and narrow from those who are just plain bad and must be dealt with by the justice system.

Under the old YOA, youths were herded into court on days cynically called "kiddy court" by lawyers and others. Youths would be forced to endure repeated visits to the courthouse, where they were treated like criminals in training.

That was no one's fault, just an institutional reality. But it channelled young people into a certain negative mentality that was only reinforced when the lightest sentence they got was a tongue-lashing from a judge.

Any amateur psychologist could predict the outcome of that: further rebellion.

The YCJA makes extensive use of alternative measures, such as restorative justice, to keep as many kids out of the courts as possible.

Keeping kids out of court prevents some, obviously not all, from being drawn into a culture of crime. And alternative measures force youths to account for their actions in a way that is much more effective than dragging them before a crabby judge.

The YCJA deals with violent and persistent young offenders effectively, and is designed to separate them from those who can be rehabilitated through alternative measures.

Another complaint is that youths who commit crimes are not identified publicly. The purpose of that goes to another concept that a lot of conservatives struggle to understand: the presumption of innocence.

Until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a youth has committed a serious offence, his or her name cannot be released. Again, the act balances the interest of young people against public safety.

For the minority Conservative government to claim that the YCJA is failing to protect society just does not jibe with the facts. Canadians are not being victimized by youths to the extent that we can say the YCJA is failing.

It is quite the opposite, the YCJA is a great success through diversion and alternative measures in rehabilitating many young people.

The minority Conservatives are bent on buying votes through a get-tough-on-crime approach.

To do it by sacrificing this successful piece of legislation will only damage Canadian youths.

Changes to crime laws bad for teens with mental illness: experts

OTTAWA - Mental-health and youth advocates are denouncing the Conservative government's "regressive" bill to alter the Youth Criminal Justice Act, saying many of the proposed changes could lead to the incarceration of more youth with mental illnesses.
They further argue the bill goes against the principle of rehabilitating young people.
Testimony given Thursday at a justice committee hearing centred on the case of Ashley Smith, a mentally ill 19-year-old from New Brunswick who was originally incarcerated for minor crimes and committed suicide in a prison cell in 2007.
Bernard Richard, New Brunswick's child and youth advocate, who wrote a report on Smith's death, told the committee teens who suffer from mental illnesses are especially vulnerable while incarcerated and often do not get the services they require while in prison.
"Ashley cried out for help and she became progressively worse while in contact with the system," said Richard. "There are thousands of young Canadians out there suffering from mental illness, from behaviour disorders, from addictions, who come in contact with the criminal justice system. They should be diverted, directed to treatment - not incarceration. Inevitably, incarceration makes their conditions worse."
Smith was originally jailed as a youth in New Brunswick and eventually moved to the adult system, until her death at Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont.
Richard told the committee how Smith's behaviour worsened to the point that she spent more than two-thirds of her time in prison in segregation for at least 23 hours a day.
She had 501 institutional charges and 70 criminal charges, with more than half laid at provincial jails, and 168 incidents of self-harm.
"The question should be, does our criminal justice system provide mental-health treatment for youths like Ashley Smith? The answer is a glaring no," Richard said after the meeting.
The federal government's bill - also called Sebastien's Law in memory of Quebec teenager Sebastien Lacasse, who was killed by a 17-year-old - proposes several changes to the YCJA, most notably making "protection of society" a primary goal of the legislation.
It would simplify the rules to keep "violent and repeat young offenders" in pre-trial detention when necessary, require the Crown to seek adult sentences for some serious crimes, such as murder and aggravated assault, enable courts to impose "more appropriate sentences" on violent and repeat offenders and would give judges discretion to publish the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences.

"We recognize that it is much easier to rehabilitate a young person than an adult. Therefore none of our proposals would change the importance of rehabilitating young offenders. Sebastien's Law would provide additional tools for the courts when dealing with violent and repeat young offenders who threaten public safety,"said Pamela Stephens, a spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.
The bill would also add "deterrence and denunciation" to the sentencing principles. Some critics say those provisions are both ineffective and would take the focus off rehabilitation.

"I don't like the overall direction of the bill. I think it's too punitive," Richard said after his testimony. He also called the bill "regressive" and said any move to change the seven-year-old YCJA is "premature."

"I think that's embarrassing for the country, that we would be going in that direction at this time. What we need is a national mental-health strategy both for youth and for adults in the criminal justice system," he said.

Nicholson vehemently defended his bill at a past committee meeting.

"Canadians lose confidence in the youth justice system when sentences are insufficient to hold violent and repeat offenders accountable for their crimes," Nicholson said at the previous committee meeting held in May.

Still, opponents of the bill say that any changes will inevitably affect youth before and after incarceration, and what is most needed is rehabilitation, not harsher laws.

"We need to start looking at more prevention-based efforts, but in the case that young people do commit crimes and are serving a sentence, we need to provide appropriate means to re-integrate and that requires services," said Miguel LeBlanc, executive director of the New Brunswick Association of Social Workers.

Liberal MP Brian Murphy said after committee that while the bill proposes some positive changes to the YCJA - such as making it illegal for youth to serve time in adult institutions - it may be going too far in copying elements of the adult model.

He said he will also file a motion asking Nicholson to release the reports gathered at a series of round tables on youth crime and justice, which were conducted across the country in 2008 but have not been seen by committee members.

We do not need to change the youth criminal justice act. The youth crime rates has been declining, so why the need to get tougher? There is no need. We need to place emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration, especially for youths and to address the root causes and contributing factors to their criminal behaviour. We should not remove rehabilitation from the YCJA! The courts need to rely less on imprisonment for youths, and more on alternative sanctions. Prisons for youth are the schools of crime. They teach youth to become better criminals and offer little rehabilitation and assistance when released. This does not make society safer. I also have concerns about more mentally ill teens being imprisoned. Imprisonment does not offer the range of services required for them and is likely to worsen their conditions. They will likely not receive any treatment and this is dangerous not just for them, but also for society. Deterrence should not be a sentencing principle for youths, or anyone! It is a myth and is not effective. Potential criminals are not deterred by the prospect of prison/punishment. They are often impulsive, not rational, cost-benefit weighing actors. They do not think about the consequences of their actions. We need to keep rehabilitation as the main focus of the YCJA. Youth crimes rates are declining.. so why do we need to get tougher? 

Youth Justice proposed reforms are a "backwards step" and will not reduce or prevent youth crime

The Youth Criminal Justice System in Depth

Youth sentencing changes proposed

The Conservative government hopes changes proposed Tuesday will make "protection of society a primary goal" of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he wants to give judges the power to consider non-criminal behaviour when sentencing Canadians under age 18.

Such behaviour would include a "casual attitude to the law [and] complete lack of empathy for the victim," said Nicholson, flanked by the mothers of two youths who were killed by young offenders.

The changes would also permit sentencing judges to take into account evidence of previous brushes with the law that did not result in charges or convictions.

The amendments are dubbed "Sebastien's Law" in memory of Sebastien Lacasse, a 19-year-old Quebecer stabbed to death by a group of youths after making racially charged comments about his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend at a house party in 2004.

The 17-year-old ringleader pleaded guilty and was sentenced as an adult.

The proposed changes come as youth crime is on the decline in Canada. In 2006-2007, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 56,463 youth court cases across Canada, according to Statistics Canada.

That represented a slight rise — 0.34 per cent — over 2005-2006 but was a 26 per cent drop from 2002-2003, the year before the Youth Criminal Justice Act came into effect, when there were 76,153 youth court cases.

The Conservatives vowed in 2008 to reduce protections under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for young people convicted of serious crimes.

Youth justice reform called a backwards step

New Brunswick's child and youth advocate is criticizing the federal government's youth justice reforms as a step backwards.

Bernard Richard told the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights on Thursday that the federal government's proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act would send more young people to jail.

"I think it's contradictory with the existing legislation. It's a totally different approach. I think we're going backwards, back to the Young Offenders [Act] approach, which allowed us to have an extremely high incarceration rate of youth as compared to other advanced, civilized nations and developed nations," Richard said.

"I think there is a contradiction there in terms and unfortunately it takes us in the wrong direction."

Richard told the Commons committee he worries the proposed changes will lead to more spending on jails.

He also told the federal politicians he's concerned that if the reforms are implemented there may be less money spent on innovative approaches to treating young people with mental health or severe behaviour disorders.

Ashley Smith comparison

To illustrate his concerns, Richard raised the tragic case of Moncton teenager Ashley Smith, who died in an Ontario prison when she was 19 in October 2007.

Smith was sentenced to a month at the Miramichi Youth Centre in 2004. But the Moncton girl remained in custody for more than three years, racking up internal charges that kept her in the detention centre.

She eventually made it into the adult system where she ended up at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont.

Smith choked herself to death in a prison cell, prompting an investigation by Richard as well Howard Sapers, the federal correctional investigator.

"During those three years, [she] spent two-thirds of her time in segregating, solitary eight by 10 cell lights on 24 hours a day," Richard told the committee.

"And if she didn't suffer from mental illness when she went in she would have when she came out and I would have as well."

The Conservative government unveiled the proposed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in March.

The changes are intended to give judges the power to consider non-criminal behaviour when sentencing Canadians under age 18.

The proposed changes come as youth crime is on the decline in Canada. In 2006-07, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 56,463 youth court cases across Canada, according to Statistics Canada.

That represented a slight rise — 0.34 per cent — over 2005-06 but was a 26 per cent drop from 2002-2003, the year before the Youth Criminal Justice Act came into effect, when there were 76,153 youth court cases.

I think these changes in youth justice, would be more harmful than beneficial. The emphasis for sentencing of youths should be rehabilitation and reintegration, not punishment. Sending more youths to prison will only cause further overcrowding and increase the chances of re-offending as prisons are the schools of crime and decrease the likelihood of successful reintegration. This is not in society's best interests. Prisons fail at addressing the root causes and underlying contributing factors of criminal behaviour, which means it is not a long term solution. Getting tough on crime does not make society safer, as more offenders will be released, with little rehabilitation and assistance. The Conservatives base their tough on crime policies on an emotional response, and their policies are not evidence-based, rational, reasonable or logical. Tough on crime approaches were an expensive failure in the US.. what makes them think it will be effective here in Canada? Especially when crime rates are currently decreasing? Why is there a need to get "tougher"? We should not be emulating the American model. Building more prisons and spending billions to incarcerate more people for longer periods, is draconian in nature and it will not help to prevent, deter, or reduce crime. Imprisoning more people is a short term, quick fix that will end up creating more hardcore criminals rather than rehabilitating and helping youths, who often come from impoverished backgrounds and families. Prison should always be a last resort and not over-relied upon. Incarceration should only be used in rare cases where the individual poses a danger to society. We should not imprison those who are addicts, mentally ill, aboriginal, drug/property/non-violent offenders. Over-relying on imprisonment means that more aboriginals will be incarcerated. Jail time will not cure the poverty, addictions and other problems that plague aboriginal communities. Thanks to mandatory minimums, there are a disproportionate number of socially disadvantaged and marginalized individuals in prisons. They are more likely to be imprisoned and that is discriminatory. Getting tougher through mandatory sentencing doesn't deter crime but only caters to the portion of the public who are vengeful and ignorant at the prospect of inflicting harm on others. We need judicial discretion to consider all of the circumstances. The emphasis of our justice system needs to be on rehabilitation not on punishment. Clearly, the Liberal justice policies were working, because crime rates have been decreasing for the past 25 years. With these new Conservative tough on crime policies, I predict that crime will start increasing. We do not need to get tough on crime when crime rates are decreasing. Throwing more youth in prison will only make them better criminals and more involved in the criminal lifestyle. 

I am proud to be known as a "bleeding heart" Liberal. At least I have compassion and sympathy. It's better than having no heart at all. At least the liberals are attempting to solve problems such as poverty, unemployment and neglect. The Conservatives do nothing to solve poverty, and love to punish criminals. Conservatives could care less about preventing or reducing crime, as the research shows that getting tough on crime is ineffective and actually increases recidivism. They are imprisoning more and more people and not doing anything to help the disadvantaged and marginalized populations in society. 

Recently the government of Canada has introduced the following measures regarding crime and punishment in Canada:

1. Increased mandatory minimum sentences.
2. Eliminated credit for time served in preliminary detention facilities.
3. Made it more difficult to obtain a pardon.
4. Eliminated O.A.S. payments for inmates over 65 years of age.
5. Increased punishment for young offenders.

The measures outlined above are short-sighted and will have the following consequences:

More offenders will be spending more time in incarceration, diligently aquiring the tools of the trade to become a hardened criminal, thus become a future burden to society.

Those unable to obtain a pardon will have limited travel and employment opportunies, thus more likely to go on welfare or unemployment, again a future burden to society.

O.A.S. payments to seniors in prison is such a minuscule issue that it's hardly worth mentioning, except for the revenge freaks out there.

Increasing punishment for youth offenders goes against every study ever conducted and once again serves to increase potential harm to society in the future as youthful indiscretion is transformed in to ever increasing incarceration instead of rehabilitation and reintegration. 

What is sadly lacking is any serious effort to come to terms with the causes of criminal behaviour, early intervention strategies, and best practices to improve the future behaviour of offenders.
Apparently, the Harper Conservatives are only copying the failed US system instead of studying the successes in civilized, developed countries.

A "tough on crime" approach where people do little more than pound their chests and lock up everyone they can easily sentence simply turns out tough criminals. Having worked with incarcerated young offenders, I can assure you that there is no more effective method or location for training future criminals than a youth jail.

Yes, there are young people who require incarceration, and some who must be dealt with as adults, but current laws allow for this. What society should be demanding is early intervention to reduce the number of youth who become adult criminals. That is not the outcome of a lock-em-up, tough-on-crime approach. Money would be far more effectively spent providing activities in schools and communities so that all kids--regardless of family income or interest--can have ready and free access to alternatives to drugs and crime. And I don't mean funding for elitist sports that spit out the unworthy; I mean activites that are open, welcoming and relavent to any kid.

As for young offenders doing the time for their crimes, unlike adults, young offenders aren't released after completing 30% or 50% of their sentences. A six-month sentence for a youth means six months, and so is the equivalent of a year's adult sentence.

When our government stops focusing on the citizen and only focuses on the crime, you can rest assured that we will have more of the latter.

The Harper Conservative government does not care about evidence based policy. They are trying to appeal to "fire and brimstone", bible thumping evangelicals, the fearful, and the ignorant who don't know that crime rates have been steadily declining.
This "hateful", irresponsible group of Harper cons KNOW their policies are regressive and harmful but I believe Harper covets the US for profit prison industry and wants to use our legislature to pass laws that will fill prisons with the poor, minorities, and addicts. There is HUGE amounts of money in it. Harper will have our police militarized and bashing down the doors of peaceful, non violent people while at the same time confiscating their property. Harper wants to appoint "Czars" accountable ONLY TO HIM so as to undermine the autonomy of our bureaucracy. He would like to see as an example a drug Czar like in the US to implement things like "cannabis has no medical value" even though science proves it shrinks tumors and safely treats a plethora of illness, just as they have done in the US.

When one steps back and summarizes his whole agenda it appears that Harper wants Canada to become the US. A corrupt regime fronting the interests of huge multinational corporations at the expense of the Canadian people.

HARPER THE HORRIFIC!

The Conservatives: HARPER, ROB NICHOLSON, VIC TOEWS - they're evil men at heart.

These right wing, bible punching SOBs are intent on criminalizing the everyday activities of normal Canadians.

And they're intent on putting more and more decent people in newly built jails. All this justified on the FABRICATION that crime is rampant in Canada.

Using SCARE TACTICS and MISINFORMATION, the Conservatives are trying hard to shape public opinion based on hogwash, yet statistically Canada's crime rate has been FALLING since early 1990s (according to Stats Can). Canada's population is aging, and as it does our crime rate will continue to fall.

HARPER and Rob NICHOLSON, they're evil men.

Canadians are not all born with original sin, and we don't need to have a Canadian Version of original sin bestowed upon ourselves and our children courtesy of the Conservative Party of Canada.

I don't want Canada's justice system to be run according to someone's bible.

The gov't is bring forth these changes to blow smoke and fire and show that they are 'Tough on Crime'. They are trying a rational, logical approach of harsher penalties...seems like a good idea. The problem with teens is that they are often anything but rational and logical and most seldom consider the consequences of their actions.
Laws such as these new amendments depend on them being rational to provide protection, i.e. 'If i do this I'm in big trouble'. How many teens do you know that think that way?

Parents have very little power over these wizened, internet savvy tweens who quickly find out about 'child abuse' and how they can use that threat to keep their parents at bay.

Bottom line: A bigger stick to beat these kids with is NOT what's needed, better tools, support and education for parents and families IS!!!

Lock em up or not. That is the question. The problem is rehabilitation is what they need and I think weve proven prison is not effective rehabilitation. We need to do better for our young people in particular. If it is about revenge for what they have done to you I can see where you would just want to lock em up to make you feel better. If you actually want to change thier behaviour I think you will have to try something else. That might take some real effort. money, and a time commitment. or we could build bigger prisons.

we should not "punish" troubled youth.

We have a moral duty to help them where we can as long as it does not involve placing ourselves at risk.

Many of these youth did not have the opportunities, guidance and love that many of us had and it is no mystery that this would breed resentment and in some violent behavior.

However when any youth or adult has proven themselves dangerous to society they must be physically isolated from he rest of us after a fair trial.

Option 1: Send young criminals to jail so they can learn how to be a really good crook for life, while simultaneously spending a huge amount of money on locking them up (not to mention what we will now have to spend on a lifetime criminal). They will become better criminals, more criminally involved, be released with little assistance and little rehabilitation. 

Option 2: Rehabilitate young criminals to become productive members of society, without heavy criminal records that haunt them for life and keep them from integrating into society. In the process, a certain number of them will fall back into a criminal life and go to prison anyways, but a certain number of them will become productive and contribute to society.

What do you people think happens to these kids in jail? How do you think this makes them better adjusted people when they get out? How do you think this prepares them for dealing with society in a way that is acceptable to the population? The penal system is broken by design and putting more people into it means you are making more people hardened and lifetime criminals in the end.

Mr Nicholson is like a cranky old man shaking his fist and grumbling "kids and their drugs, lock em up and throw away the key!"

He is not interested in facts, experts, or peer reviewed data when implementing policy- he goes with his gut. His gut feeling says that we should copy the USA style of justice system. Look how well that is working out for them!

This is the same guy that is STILL trying to force through mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offences. In 2010 this is probably the dumbest thing you can do. I'm suprised Harper is letting him do it.

The Conservatives base their policies on an emotional response not on research, evidence, rationale, reason or logic. 

Typical Western mentality, mould them to be problematic citizens and then instead of trying to help them reform you jail them just to segregate them from the "well-adjusted". Society creates these kids and then punishes them for the only way they've learned to be.

Any reversion in the YCJA is absolutely irresponsible and ignorant of how to treat youth crime.

a great many of young offenders come out of homes where there is emotional, verbal, mental and sexual abuse. No wonder they act out! These kids need rehabilitation and help with mental health issues. The small number of young offenders that are sociopathic and psychopathic need incarceration. 

Our jails are full. What are they full of? Can't all be murderers and thieves, because there aren't enough of those to fill our jails, I'm sure. No, the jails are full, because 80% of the prisoners are in for pot. Take away these "victimless" crimes, and use the prisons for those who do have victims. I'm not saying that victimless crimes should not be punished, just that they shouldn't be incarcerated.

Drug dealers (prostitutes, etc) are in it for the money. Take the money away from them and then they won't want to continue... or, if the said offenses could be decriminalized and legalized, and regulated by the government, then the government rather than the offenders would make the money (and an awful lot of it too... just look at what legalizing gambling has done for them!) and let these "criminals" do things the right way, rather than the "wrong" way.

Much of youth crime starts out as dares and hazing and is not really serious stuff until they get away with it for a while. I understand that this is not always the case, but most of the stuff kids do, is just that: kids stuff. But if they get involved with more serious offenses, they need a place where they can be, yes punished, but also where they can continue to go to school, where they can get counselling, and where their parents can also get counselling on how to deal with their problem child. In this way, you try to prevent future crimes. 

Increased punishment is no deterrent. 

Again, Harper is trying to fix something that is NOT broken, instead of trying to address the real problems. The article makes it clear that youth crime is in DECLINE... why do we need to get "tougher"? The truth is we don't.

By moving away from a rehabilitation approach, Harper is literally condemning children to a life in the criminal justice system, for the sake of votes. He is sacrificing children to some sick popularity game. The man is a monster.

People who advocate prison to solve behaviour problems do not understand what prison really is.

Prison while being a useful deterrent is also a school that teaches many things.

Prison teaches inmates that society is more evil than they are; thus when they leave prison full of revenge it is much easier to do crime.

Prison teaches that police, prison guards and basically all authority are the bad guys and they must be fooled, opposed and defied at every step.

Prison teaches that the only rules that are real are the laws of the jungle. In other words victimize so that you are not the victim. In prison the inmates practice being violent and abusive for their own protection. In time one gets very good at it.

Prison teaches one how to fight (fight really well I might add). With an atmosphere of constant violence and fighting over time the inmates get very skilled. Pracitce makes perfect.

In prison one learns a career. In prison one forms special bonds with members of the criminal world in order to keep safe. These bonds often last a life time and are very valuable when one gets out and needs "employment".

Prison while having value in being a deterent to crime is also a university where inmates learn to hate society and become criminals. People who think that thowing a young person in jail will somehow make him good are very mistaken. Throwing troubled youth in prison trains them to be monsters that all of society will have to deal with for the rest of their lives.

The Conservative party's crime solutions are a major step backwards for Canada and reducing crime.

Nobody wants crime but it can only be reduced with proper steps. Stephen Harper's polices will increase crime in Canada for generations to come. 

And when the Cons do away with pardons, all those young people will leave custody with PERMANENT records. What incentive then to turn one's life around?

We need only look to the American experience with "boot camps", a philosophy that's been completely discredited. Why? Because there is no support system outside the prison walls to help them STAY disciplined, and that is the fault of visionless leadership (like that of the Conservatives), who want to axe social programs. How LOW is the crime rate in the States thanks to their extreme--well, extremely profitable--prison system?

Blind-faith Con supporters should open their eyes. Harper and his ilk make this country a little more red, white and blue every day.

If we have to stop youth crime, putting kids in jail is entirely the wrong way to go about it. You may not think that it's going backwards to do so, but study after study after study by people who study these things (i.e. look at the facts and statistics, hopefully beyond their bias) will tell you that jail is not a deterrent to criminal behaviour. People (including youth) who commit crimes either don't expect to be caught, or don't care about the consequences.
If you actually want to lessen or stop youth crime, you actually have to do something about the root causes of crime - alienation, powerlessness, poverty, poor education, a lack of connection to society, and so forth. Throwing people in jail doesn't actually fix anything. The proof can be found in our clink-happy neighbours to the south, where 10% of their population is either in jail or on parole, and crime numbers aren't going down.

Canadians do not want Biblical style justice in this country. The religious zealots driving this government have no interest in what's best for our youth, but are motivated by religious ideology. 

If you want to see whether or not this "backwards" attitude to youth justice works, just look at the United States, where are a far greater proportion of their own citizens are behind bars. They even execute large numbers of their own citizens every year.

The result is (per capita):

-higher crime rate than us
-more gun crimes than us
-higher violent crime rate than us
-higher murder rate than us

Biblical style justice is moronic and it doesnt' work.

This is a government trying to put Biblical justice into place,

BUT:

1) They won't apply it to their own people (for example Jaffir and Mulroney)

2) They don't support the police (who are ALL calling for the maintenance of the gun registry - which they use constantly to save lives.)

We don't need the justice system of the stone age. We don't need to criminalize young people.

It's called rehabilitation. It's unfair to throw kids in jail thinking they were acting like adults.

Punishment does not = deterrent to crime!

Punishment does = revenge!

The way to reduce crime is to look at the causes not the symptoms. At no time has harsher punishments resulted in reduction in crime rates. The only time crimes go down is when detection and convictions go up. Most 'criminals' do not expect to be caught, period. If they think there is a good chance of being caught they will be hesitant to commit the crime.

The social cost of keeping people of all ages in jail is insanity. We need fewer people in jail and better alternatives. The safety of all of us can be better served by looking for and addressing the reason crime is committed.

This so-called reform by the conservatives has been on the table for a long time ... and it's kept on the table each time Harper prorogues to avoid accountability. He likes to be able to trot out his "tough-on-crime" agenda in the hopes that this time he'll get what he wants (a majority - gawd help us!).

This so-called reform simply sounds good to those who actually have no knowledge of the empirical reality.

Youth crime rates are going down. Why the need for reform?
This is another waste of money by the conservative government.

Do we really want to spend so much on prisons (that don't indeed make us safer) that we can't afford health care?

All the reforms that the conservatives have introduced all cost tonnes of money - I think they want to bankrupt our country so that we have no choice but to privatize everything.

An offender will most likely commit crimes once released, our prison population will eventually soar and our more of our taxes will have to be taken from our education and health systems.

If you want proof, look to the United States. They struggle with major crime rates, they have the highest prison population in the world and the New York Times reported in 2008 approximately 7% of State budgets were devoted to corrections.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act may have its problems, but at least this isn't one of them. It is time the Harper Government read and comprehended available research and literature in order to come up with a more practical solution.

It's really hard to seriously discussing the governing problems of this nation when conservatives simply don't care about empirical reality.

Youth crime is declining, so the current approach arguably *is* working but they all just "know" that it isn't working, because they heard about some case in a mangled chain email they got and never even checked if it was remotely accurate. And it doesn't matter what the flaws are with the current system, the solution is always to crank up the harshness of the system.

Oh, and all the people who spend years learning about these issues, conducting research, examining evidence and knowing what they are talking about who oppose a simplistic stiffer penalty approach, well they're just "ivory tower eggheads" or some such and we should all just ignore them since they know what they're talking about.

Damn the statistics, full steam ahead with a regressive and vengeful criminal law system! Like I said, this is why we can't have nice things when conservatives have say over the government.

Clearly there are a lot of smug Con supporters here who have never actually encountered the Youth system or know anything about crime in this country.

Hot flash from the news room cons, crime has been dropping steady each year steadily since 1990. In 2003 it jumps up from the year before because of a 300% increase in fraud, because of ONE criminal. Yes, that is how low our crime rate is in some areas that a single criminal can affect the national numbers.

Crime over all has been dropping even youth crime.
So this entire bill is useless. It will do nothing about crime in general or youth crime in particular. It is not about justice or prevention of crime, but about revenge from angry, mean spirited, unthinking Cons who believe the myth of youth crime rather than the reality.

Well you are wrong and this government is wrong. These measures will do nothing. Except for cost us taxpayers more and more money to house the greater numbers of jailed youth at a time when the Cons have already put us deep into debt with their spending.

Ironic eh? All the Cons screaming that 14 year old is mature enough to know right from wrong and go to jail for life for a crime, but NOT mature enough to drive, drink, vote or consent to have sexual relations.

You are all damned hypocrites, and vengeful ones at that. And on the facts of criminal justice and youth justice, you are plain wrong. Period.

Of course it's a step backwards ... into retribution instead of prevention.

There are 2 sides to the issue. One is that many of these children need help. They come from horrendous situations and don’t have the training / upbringing that one needs to become a productive member of society. THAT being said there is a need for JUSTICE and they are still responsible for their actions. Ideally we need a system that can deliver the social help these children need, but NOT at the expense of delivering the consequences of their crimes.

Teen loses appeal for reduced jail time, stemming from being called a "punk" from Judge

Teen loses battle over Judge's punk remark

A teenaged repeat criminal who was called a "punk" by a judge during a court hearing has lost an appeal for reduced jail time. The appeal was based on claims the remark showed bias towards him.
The teen was handed a nine-month youth sentence earlier this year for brandishing and pointing a loaded, sawed-off shotgun in a public place. The punishment was three months longer than prosecutors were seeking.

'That this punk thinks he can walk around, you know, with a sling under his jacket concealing a sawed-off firearm. I mean that – while he's on probation and a weapons prohibition. I mean it's insane.'—Manitoba judge

At the time of the offence, he was out on probation for drug-trafficking and subject to a sweeping prohibition barring him from possessing a range of weapons, including guns.
Court also heard at his sentencing hearing that the teen had fashioned a sling under his jacket allowing him to easily conceal the shotgun.
After hearing the Crown's argument for giving the teen jail time — but before the defence lawyer had a chance to speak — the judge remarked:
"That this punk thinks he can walk around, you know, with a sling under his jacket concealing a sawed-off firearm. I mean that – while he's on probation and a weapons prohibition. I mean it's insane," the judge said.
The teen and his lawyer appealed, saying the comment rendered the hearing unfair and that the nine month sentence was too harsh.

No bias

But in a written decision released to the public on Tuesday, Justice Freda Steel of Manitoba's Court of Appeal said there was no suggestion of bias in the case based on the judge's remarks. She did not identify the judge in question.
While the judge shouldn't have called the teen a punk, the judge shouldn't have to mince words, Steel suggested.
"As a representative of the community, the judge has an important role in emphasizing society's disapproval and condemnation need not be cloaked in neutral or euphemistic language," she stated.
Put in context of the facts of the case, "a reasonable person who was there for the entire proceedings would have felt the matter was decided fairly," Steel wrote.
The teen was granted leave to appeal his case to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not yet known if he will.
Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the teen cannot be identified.

The 9 month sentence was much too harsh. I would like to know more about the teen's background and other mitigating factors in this case. I would have agreed to some jail time, because the teen did violate his probation meaning a more restrictive measure is needed. However, 9 months is too harsh. I would have argued for between 3 and 5 months. 

"Government too soft on youth crime?" I don't think so!

Feds too soft on youth crime: Swan

THE Harper government isn't going far enough in toughening up the much-maligned Youth Criminal Justice Act, Attorney General Andrew Swan said Wednesday.

Swan said while Ottawa is taking some positive steps in holding young people more accountable for their crimes, changes recently introduced are actually a step backwards in protecting the public.

YCJA changes in the works

OTTAWA wants to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Here's what's on the table:
Requiring the Crown to consider seeking an adult sentence for offenders age 14 to 17 convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault.
Expanding the definition of violent offences to include reckless behaviour and endangering public safety.
Giving judges discretion on the publication of names of young offenders convicted of violent offences.
Requiring police to keep a record of "extrajudicial" measures imposed on young people even if they have not been convicted of a crime in court.

"Even though the federal government sounds like it's doing the right thing on sentencing, there are real concerns about the bail provisions," Swan said. "It will be a lot tougher for a Crown attorney to make a successful argument to keep someone in custody even where the Crown attorney can make a good case that there's a risk of reoffending, there's a risk of someone failing to comply with conditions."

Swan made his comments on the eve of his first meeting as justice minister with his counterparts from the western provinces in Vancouver Friday.

He said he wants the other provinces to lobby with Manitoba to close these holes currently under consideration in Ottawa.

"We don't want to take steps backward," Swan said. "The Youth Criminal Justice Act is now open for discussion. In our view, this might may be our only chance to get it right for a long time."

The federal bill to amend the YCJA focuses more on holding youth charged with serious crimes that carry sentences of five years or longer for pretrial detention, not those charged with lesser offences who are likely to reoffend if released on bail.

"The new provisions as they now stand would not allow a judge to keep a young offender in custody even where there's a pattern of offences, and that's a problem," Swan said.

He said both Manitoba and Saskatchewan need restrictive bail conditions to continue the crackdown on young auto thieves.

Swan also said he wants the other provinces and Ottawa to continue to rework legislation aimed at fighting organized crime. That includes strengthening the law against buying sex on the street, so ''johns'' who are caught repeatedly go to jail.

"We know that the street sex trade is innately tied to drugs," he said. "We know that drugs are innately tied to organized crime."

Swan said the maximum penalties are too low as currently johns caught buying sex more than once are only fined.

"We think there should be more options available for people who just don't get the message despite going to john school," he said. "The risk of (jail) we think would be another useful thing to encourage people not to be driving around looking to pick up people, especially those who may be underage."

Progressive Conservative justice critic Kelvin Goertzen said Swan should also raise the matter of how the criminal records of young offenders aren't carried with them when they become adults.

Goertzen said a young offender should earn a clean record by being crime-free for a period of time as a young adult instead of seeing it automatically disappear on their 18th birthday.

We need to stop using the terms "soft" and "tough" on crime. We just need to look at the research and see WHAT WORKS AND WHAT APPROACH IS EFFECTIVE! Toughening sentences for youth does NOT work. Rehabilitation for youth is much more beneficial than prison. Prisons for youth are the schools of crime; they learn better skills, and negative environments and influences do not foster, encourage or facilitate rehabilitation or reform. Only the most dangerous young offenders should be in prison, with a greater emphasis on intensive rehabilitation. Prison fails to deter, reduce or prevent crime. We need to do what works and prison does not work. It is a quick fix not a long term solution. We need to address the underlying factors contributing to criminal behaviour if we are truly invested in prevention and reduction of youth crime.  

Sentencing hearing begins for youth who pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death

Sentencing hearing begins for teen over cab driver's death

A sentencing hearing is underway for a 16-year-old Winnipeg who admits to driving a speeding, stolen SUV that crashed and killed a city cab driver.

The teen — who can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act — pleaded guilty last year to criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm. Justice officials stayed a charge of manslaughter.

Justice officials are seeking an adult sentence against the boy, who was 14 at the time of the deadly crash. The maximum penalty as a youth is two-years custody. The maximum for an adult is life in prison.

Antonio Lanzellotti died of massive injuries suffered in the March 2008 incident on Portage Avenue and Maryland Street which shocked and angered Winnipeggers. The teen was driving a Chevy Avalanche which contained six other young offenders. He was racing a stolen Silverado which also had seven occupants.

His sentencing began Tuesday morning and is scheduled to last two days. The youth has been in custody since his arrest.

Crown wants adult penalty for cabbie killer
A two-day sentencing hearing has begun for a teen who was behind the wheel of a stolen SUV when it slammed into a taxi, killing driver Antonio Lanzellotti.
Crown attorney Brent Davidson told court Tuesday morning he will be seeking an adult sentence for the teen.
The March 29, 2008 crash at Portage Avenue and Maryland Street sparked calls for tougher punishments for young offenders and auto thieves.
The driver was 14 years old when the crash occurred.
The now-16-year-old boy has pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
Six passengers of the vehicle were charged with possession of goods obtained by crime, including a girl who made headlines for laughing and saying she didn't care that the driver died.

Sentence cab driver killer as adult: Crown
A 16-year-old boy who was behind the wheel of a stolen sport utility vehicle that killed cab driver Antonio Lanzelotti should be sentenced as an adult to six years in prison, a judge was told Tuesday.
The boy — who was 14 years old at the time of the March 2008 crash — has pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
The boy has already served two years in custody. The maximum youth sentence he can get is two years custody and one year community supervision.
“A sentence of three years is simply not sufficient to hold (him) accountable,” argued Crown attorney Brent Davidson.
The boy’s probation officer had testified he repeatedly violated a court-ordered curfew and skipped school before the fatal crash. The breaches were never reported to police.
Davidson said the boy has shown he is unwilling to accept super vision. “If he simply would have been able to comply with his probation order he would not have been involved in this incident ... (and) Antonio Lanzelotti would still be alive,” he said.
Defence lawyer Evan Roitenberg said the boy should serve just one more year in custody. “The young man who met with a probation officer and said it was nobody’s fault but mine has expressed nothing but genuine remorse,” he said.
The boy and six other youths were in a stolen Chevrolet Avalanche, racing a stolen Chevrolet Silverado pickup when the Avalanche blew through two red lights and hit Lanzelotti’s cab.

Probation officials overlooked breaches of court orders before cab driver killed
WINNIPEG — Manitoba probation officials admit they repeatedly overlooked breaches of court orders from a 14-year-old high-risk car thief in the weeks before he got behind the wheel of a speeding, stolen SUV and killed a city cab driver.
The admission came Tuesday at a sentencing hearing for the boy, who pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm for his role in the March 2008 crash that killed Antonio Lanzellotti.
"Probation services gave him enough rope to hang himself," Crown attorney Brent Davidson told court. "If he had just listened to what the court told him to do, Antonio Lanzellotti would still be alive."
The Crown is seeking an adult sentence against the teen, who comes from a prominent family of criminals with strong ties to the Mad Cowz street gangs. They have requested another 23 months of jail, in addition to just over two years of time already spent in custody they concede should be given double-time credit. On paper, it would be noted as a six-year sentence.
The teen — who is now 16 and can’t be named unless an adult sentence is imposed — is asking to remain in youth court and be given eight more months behind bars. Queen’s Bench Justice Lea Duval has reserved her decision.
Cheryl Dyck, who served as the boy’s probation officer, testified Tuesday how the teen was originally sentenced on Feb. 8, 2008 on charges including car theft, drug offences and numerous breaches of court orders. The boy was given probation and placed on the most stringent youth criminal supervision program in Manitoba. His conditions included abstaining from alcohol and a nightly 10 p.m. curfew.
Dyck admits her department caught the teen violating his curfew on several occasions but never reported the incidents to police, who could have arrested him and detained him in custody on new charges. Instead, they upgraded his status to "high-risk" but allowed him to remain free in the community. Dyck said it’s not uncommon to ignore initial violations of young offenders.
"Once a pattern of non-compliance is established then we breach the client," she testified.
On the night of March 29, 2008, the boy had been drinking and consuming drugs with a large group of youths loitering around a downtown apartment building armed with two stolen vehicles. The group scattered when they saw police headed their way.
The boy was driving a Chevy Avalanche containing six other young offenders. He began racing a stolen Silverado that had the other seven youths, court was told. The boy reached speeds of 139 km/h — the legal limit is 60 km/h — and blew through two red lights on Portage Avenue before slamming into the taxi being driven by Lanzellotti at the corner of Portage and Maryland Street.
Lanzellotti, 55, died instantly. He suffered a massive skull fracture, broken ribs and legs and trauma to his brain and chest. A passenger in the cab was seriously injured.
The boy was ejected from the SUV and seriously injured. He initially denied any responsibility, telling police he was innocently walking down the street when he was struck by flying debris. He later admitted to being in the car but claimed another youth was driving. Police got him to admit the truth when DNA off the driver’s side airbag was a perfect match to him. The Crown agreed to drop a manslaughter charge in exchange for his guilty plea.
Dyck told court the boy has made great progress during his two years in youth custody but remains a medium risk to reoffend. She said his biggest obstacle is his own criminally entrenched family, although several relatives have since been deported to Africa.
"He has the ability, we believe, to learn from what happened and benefit from what we’re teaching him," said Dyck. "I think he’s way better equipped now to deal with the issue he’s going to face when he gets out."
The Crown supports having the boy serve the rest of his adult sentence in a youth facility because of the various treatment and programming options available to him. But Davidson said the limits of a youth sentence don’t express strong enough condemnation for the crime he committed.
City police Det.-Sgt. Kevin Kavitch testified Tuesday about the high rate of car theft in Winnipeg at the time of Lanzellotti’s death. He provided statistics showing the vast majority of offenders are youths who deliberately try to engage police in high-speed chase, putting all on the road in danger. Kavitch said between Jan. 1, 2006 and the day Lanzellotti died, police in the stolen auto unit arrested 519 people, of whom 417 were young offenders.

Probation cited in fatal crash -- Knew of breaches by boy who killed cabbie
Manitoba probation officials admit they repeatedly overlooked breaches of court orders from a 14-year-old high-risk car thief in the weeks before he got behind the wheel of a speeding, stolen SUV and killed a city cab driver.
The admission came Tuesday at a sentencing hearing for the boy, who pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm for his role in the March 2008 crash that killed Antonio Lanzellotti.
"Probation services gave him enough rope to hang himself," Crown attorney Brent Davidson told court. "If he had just listened to what the court told him to do, Antonio Lanzellotti would still be alive."
The Crown is seeking an adult sentence against the teen, who comes from a prominent family of criminals with strong ties to the Mad Cowz street gangs. They have requested another 23 months of jail, in addition to just over two years of time already spent in custody they concede should be given double-time credit. On paper, it would be noted as a six-year sentence.
The teen -- who is now 16 and can't be named unless an adult sentence is imposed -- is asking to remain in youth court and be given eight more months behind bars. Queen's Bench Justice Lea Duval has reserved her decision.
Cheryl Dyck, who served as the boy's probation officer, testified Tuesday how the teen was originally sentenced on Feb. 8, 2008 on charges including car theft, drug offences and numerous breaches of court orders. The boy was given probation and placed on the most stringent youth criminal supervision program in Manitoba. His conditions included abstaining from alcohol and a nightly 10 p.m. curfew.
Dyck admits her department caught the teen violating his curfew on several occasions but never reported the incidents to police, who could have arrested him and detained him in custody on new charges. Instead, they upgraded his status to "high-risk" but allowed him to remain free in the community. Dyck said it's not uncommon to ignore initial violations of young offenders.
"Once a pattern of non-compliance is established then we breach the client," she testified.
On the night of March 29, 2008, the boy had been drinking and consuming drugs with a large group of youths loitering around a downtown apartment building armed with two stolen vehicles. The group scattered when they saw police headed their way.
The boy was driving a Chevy Avalanche containing six other young offenders. He began racing a stolen Silverado that had the other seven youths, court was told. The boy reached speeds of 139 km/h -- the legal limit is 60 km/h -- and blew through two red lights on Portage Avenue before slamming into the taxi being driven by Lanzellotti at the corner of Portage and Maryland Street.
Lanzellotti, 55, died instantly. He suffered a massive skull fracture, broken ribs and legs and trauma to his brain and chest. A passenger in the cab was seriously injured.
The boy was ejected from the SUV and seriously injured. He initially denied any responsibility, telling police he was innocently walking down the street when he was struck by flying debris. He later admitted to being in the car but claimed another youth was driving. Police got him to admit the truth when DNA off the driver's side airbag was a perfect match to him. The Crown agreed to drop a manslaughter charge in exchange for his guilty plea.
Dyck told court the boy has made great progress during his two years in youth custody but remains a medium risk to reoffend. She said his biggest obstacle is his own criminally entrenched family, although several relatives have since been deported to Africa.
"He has the ability, we believe, to learn from what happened and benefit from what we're teaching him," said Dyck. "I think he's way better equipped now to deal with the issue he's going to face when he gets out."
The Crown supports having the boy serve the rest of his adult sentence in a youth facility because of the various treatment and programming options available to him. But Davidson said the limits of a youth sentence don't express strong enough condemnation for the crime he committed.
City police Det.-Sgt. Kevin Kavitch testified Tuesday about the high rate of car theft in Winnipeg at the time of Lanzellotti's death. He provided statistics showing the vast majority of offenders are youths who deliberately try to engage police in high-speed chase, putting all on the road in danger. Kavitch said between Jan. 1, 2006 and the day Lanzellotti died, police in the stolen auto unit arrested 519 people, of whom 417 were young offenders.

I completely disagree with adult sentences for youth. Youth deserve to be sentenced as a youth. The YCJA's mandate is extremely important and relevant to youths, which focuses on more on rehabilitation and reintegration than the adult system does. 

Youths who are sent to adult prisons even if they committed a violent crime, are more likely to become more violent and dangerous and learn "new criminal ways." Prisons are commonly thought of as the "schools of crime" and this is especially true for youths. They are also at a MUCH higher risk of being assaulted, and have a higher suicide risk when in adult prisons. 

A youth who may lack education, suffer from mental health issues, behavioural problems, learning disabilities, or addictions, will have far less opportunity for rehabilitation programs in adult prisons. This is because these programs have much less funding in adult prisons and cannot serve every individual's needs when prisons become so overcrowded, like they are now. In adult prisons, rehabilitation programs and services are catered towards adult needs, not youths. This creates an especially large problem, as I believe if youth are going to sentenced to a prison term, it should be in a youth facility, where resources and programs are more tailored to their specific needs as teens. 

When placed in adult prisons, youth have even less of a chance of being rehabilitated than if sent to a youth facility. We need these individuals to be rehabilitated because someday, they will be released and it is in society's best interests. Adult prisons do not deter or reduce crime and often can cause more violence, hostility and anger within an individual. The length of a prison sentence has been shown to have no effect on recidivism rates. When released from an adult prison, youths are more likely to re-offend, likely with a more serious crime. 

There is no evidence that adult prisons are more effective for youth than youth facilities, or even better, community sanctions. So why the need to send them there? The only reason I can think of, is for revenge/vengeance which in my mind, is not sufficient enough. 

Housing teens in adult prisons is simply WRONG, regardless of the crimes committed. Placing them in adult prisons constitutes deliberate indifference to their well being and dehumanizes them. In addition to being costly in both time and resources, adult prisons essentially prevent reconciliation/healing and rehabilitation. 

Transferring the problem of serious youth offenders to an even more overwhelmed and much less effective adult system, makes absolutely no sense. 

Youth inmates are more likely to re-offend after being released from an adult prison. Ask yourself, is this in society's best interests?? I know what my answer is.

I believe that youths should be treated as such, not like adults. This boy is young and could benefit from rehab. He has his whole life ahead of him. He should be sentenced as a juvenile because at the time, he was a juvenile!! In this case, rehabilitation is a huge factor and we need to strive to understand the causes of this youth's criminal behaviour and deviance.

This boy has made progress in youth custody and doesn't have the greatest family background, as the majority of his relatives are prominent criminals and have gang ties. This boy grew up in an environment like this and doesn't know any better. He didn't grow up knowing any pro social values or morals. I think we really need to address the problems with his family, because I truly believe, that that is the root cause of his behaviour. He didn't have any good role models growing up, so how do you expect him to behave? Plus, he has already spent 2 years in youth custody. 

I agree more with the defence than the Crown, in that he should serve 8 more months. Personally, I would suggest about 4-5 more months, combined with probation. I think this teen needs counseling to help deal with his criminal family, family counseling (if all were willing), and a mentor to act as a good role model for this teen, help with education, employment assistance, and drug/alcohol treatment. I think maybe group therapy could be effective as well.

Judges gives youth open custody and community service for first time youth offender- - A move in the right direction

'It boggles the mind' - - Judges awards open custody for unprovoked beating

A 17-year-old male has been sentenced to 10 1/2 months custody and community supervision for his part in a vicious, unprovoked attack on a 45-year-old man.

The victim was walking home with his 22-year-old son when he was swarmed by the accused and five other youths underneath the Osborne Street bridge, shortly before midnight, July 3, 2009.

The man was punched, kicked and beaten with a wooden stick before being robbed of his wallet and car keys, court was told.

He suffered three broken ribs, two black eyes and cuts and bruises to his face and head.

“It’s inexplicable, the violent and unprovoked nature of the attack,” said Judge Carena Roller. “It boggles the mind.”

The boy — who was 16 years old at the time and had no prior record — pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault.

The maximum sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act is two years custody and community supervision.

The victim’s son flagged down police officers who arrived at the scene to find the accused still standing over the victim.

The boy admitted to beating the victim with a stick but claimed he had no memory of the attack because he was drunk.

Roller allowed the youth to serve his sentence in open custody, meaning he is eligible for temporary absences.

Crown attorney Lisa Carson argued the severity of the attack didn’t justify open custody.

“The criminal culpability and moral culpability here is high,” she said.

The boy will serve seven months of his sentence in custody and the balance under community supervision.

Roller sentenced him to an additional 12 months supervised probation.

First of all, by saying 'it boggles the mind', implies that this was the wrong decision to "award" open custody, when really, it's a move in the right direction. This wil give the public the distorted perception that we need harsher penalties, when they aren't even given the other side. This is a biased article.

I definitely agree with this sentence, compared to the alternative of the maximum 2 years custody and community supervision. He is a first time offender and admitted to the attack, but was intoxicated which would have impaired his judgment. Therefore, he should not be sentenced harshly, especially under the YCJA which focuses upon rehabilitation and reintegration of youths.