[hurley_108]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'm not so sure about this one. Some kids just kinda grow out of being criminals.
I agree (ish) with the sentiment that there are a proportion of young offenders who are just on a rampage and could not give a shite about the system, but the other 90% of YO's never re-offend.
Shaming those who want to rehabilitate serves no purpose.

Maybe we could look at '3 serious offences and your name is released'?
That would be easy enough to administer and be fairer than naming and shaming for the first offence. 3 indictable offences is a fair target.

I was one of those for which a second or third chance actually worked. I was a hellion as a teenager, but snapped out of it around 18. On the other hand, I imagine being in the paper for stealing cars at 15 would have been a badge of honour for me. "Hey look guys, I'm in the paper." Would have mortifed my poor mum, though.

In St. Albert, the local rag publishes a weekly map of the crime in the city. It's usually peppered with icons of property damage. I imagine a few of these were done just so some kid could point to it and say "that one was me."

Which brings up another point: West and A_M both have stated that they knew at 14 what was right and what was wrong. Did either of you commit any of these crimes at that age? I suspect the answer is no, even though you had this "nanny-state" blanket of anonymity. Anonymity did not embolden you to commit any crimes. Anonymity clearly does not embolden the vast majority of teens to commit violent crimes, and so clearly there is something different about those kids that do commit them. Is it not possible that they are not as mature as you were? Everybody matures at a different rate. Why should we punish kids for potentially nothing more than being a little slow?

[herbie]

I used to do all kinds of shit, but way back then the cool guys were the ones that never got caught at it.
Nowadays, the more shit you're in the higher your status among these morons. I know, my kid was right in there from 14 on.
"Joe is so cool, he's been to jail like 9 times..." and all his little moron friends would nod in agreement.
Naming these kids would do little but give them bragging rights and drag relatives through the muck with them. I live in a small town where they don't have to print the names, everyone knows. Three years after I booted the kid out and he moved 1,000 kms away people were still calling me and accusing him of stuff just because they knew his goddam name.
And the real problem is that they just don't DO anything about it. Even after everything is resolved, the Judge, the Attorneys on both sides will call ANOTHER deferment to all meet and get all paid again. Over and over again for years and years... regardless of the laws on the books.
It comes down to being like a parent who slaps the kid, and when he asks what for is told it's for pulling his sister's hair three years ago. Ther's a total disconnect between crime and consequenses.

[Stellar]

Well its good to see Harper is bent on adopting another Bush policy to lead our country into a failed plan. Slapping tougher penalties on youth offenders will do very little to alleviate the problem. The fact is, in general, youth crime is no different from youth crime back in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc... Of course there will be variations in statistics over time, but to treat our youth as if they are an epidemic is unnecessary.

Ask any psychologist about how to deal with this problem, and they will point to the source: social programs. The fundamental truth is that youth have cognitively matured to the point to make a correct intelligent judgment 100% of the time.

As Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies says,

$1:

"Young people, 14 years of age, can already be given adult sentences if it is a serous offence. Is it something new or is it something to make Canadians think it's something new because he (Harper) is in the midst of an election?

"If he's talking about holding young people more accountable then what's the purpose of even having a youth system. The reason we have a youth system is the presumption that young people in Canada, up to the age of 18, in some countries up the age of 24, have not developed full moral, ethical, responsibilities and cognitive abilities to process criminal intent . . ."

Regards,
Stellar

[Regina]

Rev I can certainly see it being a reporting issue if these were from the time we were kids. These though are from 1997 onward and have some sort of similar reporting and recording standards to them. Over that time period the only statistical crime rate to fall was Property Crime. The others which include violence with weapons and Drug offences were up dramatically. Those are the most dangerous types of crime there is and when you see an increasing amount of children committing them it scares me. Yes when we were teens there were scrapes with others that never got reported and I suppose that still goes on to a certain extent except for the gang banging which we never had. Another difference between then and now is there were never any weapons like guns and knives involved. A baseball bat was the most deadly thing I ever saw taken out but was never used for anything except intimidation.
I’m not joining in on this partisan debate about publishing names making a difference in crime rates. But looking at the most current data tells me that whatever we’ve been doing since 1997 isn’t working and it needs to be changed very quickly. When I see Violent youth crimes drop to levels of the previous decades, then I’d declare a winner.

[CrazyCanuck007]

i would prefer cutting their hands and feet off for the first offence, then the rest of the arms and legs for the second offence, then death....but that's just me...

[Stellar]

I was actually just watching the CBC and I learned that the overall youth crime rate is lower than it was, including the violent crime rate. This is due to the corresponding demographics of youth in Canada.

[Alta_redneck]

Did we have gangs of 12 to 16 year old girls swarming and mugging adults. I was in a few and watched a lot of scraps as a teenager in the 70's. never once seen a knife ever pulled. No one had guns. Kids respected cops back then. Kids respected private property. They sure don't now a days. We just had a deal in Alberta were 70 drunken kids swarmed a 1/2 dozen cops trying to break up a party. So no, I don't agree with your comment that kids are a same as they were 30 or 40 years ago.

And for Hurley to suggest that it's just the slow kids that get into trouble is just a stupid comment.

[Regina]

Stellar Stellar:

I was actually just watching the CBC and I learned that the overall youth crime rate is lower than it was, including the violent crime rate. This is due to the corresponding demographics of youth in Canada.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080516/d080516a.htm

[Stellar]

$1:

Did we have gangs of 12 to 16 year old girls swarming and mugging adults. I was in a few and watched a lot of scraps as a teenager in the 70's. never once seen a knife ever pulled. No one had guns. Kids respected cops back then. Kids respected private property. They sure don't now a days. We just had a deal in Alberta were 70 drunken kids swarmed a 1/2 dozen cops trying to break up a party. So no, I don't agree with your comment that kids are a same as they were 30 or 40 years ago.

To be fair, statistics do not back up your assertion that youth do not currently respect private property. In fact there has been a decrease in property related crimes in youth.

[martin14]

Stellar Stellar:

$1:

Did we have gangs of 12 to 16 year old girls swarming and mugging adults. I was in a few and watched a lot of scraps as a teenager in the 70's. never once seen a knife ever pulled. No one had guns. Kids respected cops back then. Kids respected private property. They sure don't now a days. We just had a deal in Alberta were 70 drunken kids swarmed a 1/2 dozen cops trying to break up a party. So no, I don't agree with your comment that kids are a same as they were 30 or 40 years ago.

To be fair, statistics do not back up your assertion that youth do not currently respect private property. In fact there has been a decrease in property related crimes in youth.

umm, my guess is that property crime is now boring, kids are moving up to the more
glamorous stuff.

I can remember being 14, i knew exactly what i was doing, and i knew it was wrong.
i think youth today are much more cruel than we we were, we didnt roll people over just for the hell of it, we kept our fighting pretty much amongst ourseleves.
Interesting that R and rev talk about the 70's, i was of that age in the early
80's, where you could see bats and knives coming out.
Now you see the kids running around with guns, its a sign of the progression,
that kids today are much more violent than we were.
It also seems they have no fear of the police, which we still had.
That's something that needs to change, and i'm not sure coddling killers is the
answer.

[ziggy]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Did we have gangs of 12 to 16 year old girls swarming and mugging adults. I was in a few and watched a lot of scraps as a teenager in the 70's. never once seen a knife ever pulled. No one had guns. Kids respected cops back then. Kids respected private property. They sure don't now a days. We just had a deal in Alberta were 70 drunken kids swarmed a 1/2 dozen cops trying to break up a party. So no, I don't agree with your comment that kids are a same as they were 30 or 40 years ago.

And for Hurley to suggest that it's just the slow kids that get into trouble is just a stupid comment.

How true,funny how a person mellows out when they near 18 and jail time becomes a possibility.

Our last "gang" that was into stealing cars here because they only got a slap on the wrist finally got in to one too many high speed chases and allmost killed a busload of kids. So it's not about bragging rights anymore when it gets to that level.

Unless you like bragging how many times you took it up the ass in jail.
They get real serious when that part(jail) starts to come into the picture.

Then you become the laughingstock amongst your friends.

The crowd I hung out with was as bad as they come,publishing their names in the local rag did help,some got a little drive out into the bush with dad and never reoffended again.

[Dayseed]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Dayseed, Ridenrain, EyeBrock, Arctic_Menace, and Westmanguy, let me put this question to you all:

If a 14-18 year-old is mature enough and cognizant enough to know that murder is wrong and thus worthy of having his or her name released as a matter of course, then why do we not allow 16-18 year-olds to vote? Why do we not allow them to drive? Why do we not allow them to gamble or watch R rated movies?

In short: Why is it the right thing to do to expect more responsibility of them but keep from them these privileges?

We do allow 18 year olds to vote. 18 year olds can do all of that.

Since you've abandoned all the other points that people have made in favour of a simplistic dichotomy, I answer it thusly: Why is voting equitable with murder?

Also, what happened to answering what's up with the impossibility of quantifying juevenile murderer reform rates?

[kenmore]

Its all tory hype,, anything to get any vote from anyone who will listen to his diatribe... I agree with the tough on crime thing, but sending 14 yr old to prison on life terms is a bit out there. We as a society have an obligation to rehabilitate in some cases.. Stephen Truscott is a prime example of why we should't go down this road.

[Dayseed]

kenmore kenmore:

Its all tory hype,, anything to get any vote from anyone who will listen to his diatribe... I agree with the tough on crime thing, but sending 14 yr old to prison on life terms is a bit out there. We as a society have an obligation to rehabilitate in some cases.. Stephen Truscott is a prime example of why we should't go down this road.

Stephen Truscott is guilty of the crime of murdering Lynne Harper. Want to debate it?

[Reverend Blair]

$1:

Rev I can certainly see it being a reporting issue if these were from the time we were kids. These though are from 1997 onward and have some sort of similar reporting and recording standards to them. Over that time period the only statistical crime rate to fall was Property Crime. The others which include violence with weapons and Drug offences were up dramatically. Those are the most dangerous types of crime there is and when you see an increasing amount of children committing them it scares me. Yes when we were teens there were scrapes with others that never got reported and I suppose that still goes on to a certain extent except for the gang banging which we never had. Another difference between then and now is there were never any weapons like guns and knives involved. A baseball bat was the most deadly thing I ever saw taken out but was never used for anything except intimidation.
I’m not joining in on this partisan debate about publishing names making a difference in crime rates. But looking at the most current data tells me that whatever we’ve been doing since 1997 isn’t working and it needs to be changed very quickly. When I see Violent youth crimes drop to levels of the previous decades, then I’d declare a winner.

The violent crime statistics, especially murder, are not reliable though, Regina. The incidence is so low that one or two more cases can push the percentage way up. That's noted in several of the reports on youth crime.

You should also keep in mind that a lot of the violence is gang on gang. They kill each other and sometimes an innocent bystander. Now, why have gangs proliferated in recent years? The laws never got any softer in 1997.

It's interesting that you note a year in the mid to late nineties as being a turning point though. That would be right around when the cuts to social programs from a few years before would start having an effect. Cut the program in 1993 and a few years later the results start showing up.