The Admissibility of Young People's Statements under the Proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the impact of Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, on the admissibility of young people s statements. Although the proposed reforms appear to leave admissibility within the discretion of youth court judges, the authors argue that the YCJA significantly curtails the types of factors that judges can consider when assessing the admissibility of youth statements. The three sources of law applicable to young offender statements are examined: the legislative provisions, the common law rules of voluntariness, and ss. 7, 9, and 10 of the Charter. The authors analyze s. 146 of the YCJA, the applicable section to youth statements, and compare it to the previous version of the Bill and to the current provisions of the Young Offenders Act The case law concerning voluntariness and Charter rights are also discussed, as well as the potential interrelationship between the three sources of law. In addition, the article explores when youth statements made to a person not in authority will be inadmissible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".