Anthony N. Doob is a professor at the Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto. He has been teaching at the University of Toronto since 1968 and has been associated with the Centre of Criminology since 1971. He served as Director of the Centre of Criminology from 1979 to 1989 and was one of the members of the Canadian Sentencing Commission from 1984 until 1987. He has written extensively on a wide range of topics including public knowledge and attitudes about sentencing and other aspects of the youth and criminal justice system, the operation of the youth justice system, the deterrent effect of sentencing, and the processing of cases in the criminal courts. More recently he has been examining the reasons for Canada’s relatively stable rate of adult imprisonment during the past half century. Since mid-2005, he has been working with various people in the Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario, on the processing of cases in bail courts.

QUESTION.- What was the situation like for young people in conflict with the law before the introduction of the ‘Youth Criminal Justice Act’ (YCJA) in April of 2003?

ANSWER.- The concern that many professional people who were knowledgeable in the area of youth justice had about the previous legal regime (the Young Offenders Act) was that the formal system was used more than it needed to be and that too many youths were being given ‘custodial’ sentences. The public perceived, on the other hand, that sentences were too lenient in court. Nobody seemed to think that the previous system was working well.

Q.- In which social context has the YCJA developed?

A.- It developed as a result, in part, of a Parliamentary and a federal-provincial review of the previous law. The Minister apparently decided that it would be best to bring in a new regime rather than amend the previous act.

Q.- What have been the main changes, or even improvements, to the well being of young offenders under the YCJA?

A.-The most successful part of the act is in reducing the use of the formal court system for minor offences.

Q.- According to your own experience, has the YCJA improved the youth justice system in Canada? Why?

A.- Yes, because fewer minor cases are going to court, and fewer youths are being sent into custody. And there are legislated restrictions on the use of custodial sentences. In an overall sense, the law is more coherent and flows well from its principles.

Q.- What principles are included in the YCJA that will ensure the protection of young people’s rights?

A.-The YCJA is criminal law. Hence youths have at least as many protections as adults have. But in addition, there are clearer principles in this act than in previous youth justice legislation and in comparison with the situation for adults.

Q.- In what ways does the YCJA hold young offenders to be accountable for their offences?

A.-The response to offending is supposed to be proportional to the youth’s offence and his or her responsibility for that offence. This is true whether we are talking about sentencing or about some response under ‘extra judicial measures’.

Q.- Apart from age as a criterion, what are the main principles and mechanisms that help determine a youth’s penal responsibility?

A.-Largely the seriousness of the offence and the youth’s responsibility for the offence. The response is supposed to be proportional to the offence and offender’s responsibility for the offence.

Q.- How has the introduction of the YCJA helped alleviate the disparity and unfairness that existed in youth sentencing across the country under the YOA?

A.- This is hard to know. I’m not sure it will, since to a large extent, sentences are only reviewed by our provincial courts of appeal. However, at least there will be a single and clearer set of sentencing principles. This should help.

Q.- In which ways have the communities supported and participated in the young offenders’ rehabilitation process under the YCJA?

A.- I don’t really know, but I don’t think that the YCJA made much difference on this dimension, but I may be wrong.

Q.- What new role have the police, the Crown prosecutors, and the judges played in the development of youth justice under the YCJA?

A.- My guess is that the police changed most under the YCJA in that there was a large and sudden drop in the number of cases that they took to youth court. Judges clearly took the sentencing provisions seriously. I don’t know how or whether prosecutors have changed.

Q.- To what degree does the youth justice system under the YCJA differ from the adult justice system?

A.- The youth system puts huge constraints on the possible length of sentences (compared to adults). But more generally, the youth system now has a clearer set of principles to follow.

Q.- What extrajudicial measures does the YCJA put forth? And overall, have the judges employed these measures?

A.-The range of measures is really not new. Generally the extrajudicial measures are imposed prior to the case getting before a judge.

Q.- How has the general public responded to the YCJA?

A.- At first, the Act was seen as too harsh. Now, for the most part, the youth justice system has not received much publicity.

Q.- Why was the law successful in changing youth justice in Canada?

A.- Initially, when the Minister of Justice announced in 1998 that she was bringing in a whole new piece of legislation, many people questioned whether this was necessary or wise. In the end, in the particular situation in which we found ourselves, it provided an opportunity to ‘rethink’ juvenile justice. In other words, people took the ‘new act’ seriously, whereas a set of amendments to the old act might have been seen as just ‘more of the same.’ In addition, for various reasons, the bill was first introduced in March 1999, but didn’t become law until April 2003. This gave everyone a chance to learn about and, in the end, reconcile themselves to the new legislation.