Youth as Victims and Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: A Charter Analysis — Recognizing Vulnerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the leading Charter decisions about youth in the criminal justice system, first examining cases in which youth are charged with offences, and the n considering cases that deal with the m as victims and witnesses. The focus is on Charter jurisprudence, with some discussion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and its impact on interpreting the Charter and Canadian legislation. The Canadian courts have recognized that youth have a special status in the criminal justice system, one that is reflected in legislation and international law and that should also be reflected in the interpretation of the Charter. In the context of their relationships with police and in the youth courts, this has meant that judges have recognized that youth are entitled to special protections, and hence should be granted enhanced rights under the Charter compared to adults; the courts have also upheld the constitutional validity of legislation that affords youth special protections. In other contexts, however, the courts have held that the special vulnerability of youth means that adult caregivers, such as parents and school officials, have special powers in regard to the m; accordingly, the Charter has also been interpreted in a way that has limited the rights of youth, in the belief that this is necessary to protect their interests. Perhaps the most important case to consider the special constitutional nature of youth, R v. B. (D.), will be decided by the Supreme Court only after this paper has been published. It is argued that its prior decisions suggest that the Court will continue to recognize that youth is a distinct phase of life that is entitled to special recognition under the Charter by placing an onus on the state to establish why a young offender should be treated as an adult.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".