EXTRAJUDICIAL MEASURES AND EXTRAJUDICIAL SANCTIONS IN JUVENILE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF CANADA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present and analyze the term, contents, characteristics and purpose of specific Extrajudicial Measures and Extrajudicial Sanctions prescribed in juvenile justice system of Canada, as well as to question the contribution of these measures i.e. sanctions when it comes to the accomplishment of fundamental ideas and principles of restorative justice. The author also attempts to point out the possibilities of Extrajudicial Measures and Extrajudicial Sanctions when it comes to the suppression of recidivism among juvenile offenders, and to present these measures as possible role – models and guidelines that would contribute to the improvement of present situation regarding the application of similar measures against juvenile offenders in Serbia. Basic issues that will be discussed include the following: brief historical review of the development of juvenile criminal law in Canada, the definition of the term, essence, contents, and actual ways in which Extrajudicial Measures and Extrajudicial Sanctions are imposed and applied in accordance with current Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as the attempt to estimate the scope and quality in which the application of these measures allows the concept of restorative justice to be fulfilled along with the idea that that the purpose of post delictum intervention is not supposed to be punishment or re – education but the establishment of preconditions for the reparation of damage caused by criminal offence through the activation of the mechanism of re – integrative instead of disintegrative shaming. Finally, the possibility of implementing some of the ideas that exist in Canadian system within the frames of present legislative solutions in juvenile criminal law of Serbia will also be discussed in this paper, particularly in the context of educational orders prescribed by Law on juvenile perpetrators of criminal offences and criminal – legal protection of minors.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it