Youth and Young Terror: Canadian Case Law and the Socio-Carceral Dynamics of Youth and Young Offenders Convicted of Terrorism Offences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focusing on developments within Canadian jurisprudence, the authors explore significant case law and its impact on our understanding of the challenges faced by youth and young offenders convicted of terrorism offences while navigating the legal and correctional systems. We demonstrate how Canadian law has often failed to address the needs and lived experiences of youth and young offenders convicted of terrorism offences while dealing with legal supports and corrections’ resources. To that end, we scrutinize important Canadian case law. Preliminary findings highlight the inadequate interventions measures, both at the state and non-state levels, available to inmates who have committed terrorism-related offences, as well as question whether such interventions have any reintegrative value for youth and young offenders’ personal growth and desistence upon release. Moreover, institutional deficits, such as the absence of correctional programing leave open the opportunity for re-offending and radicalization upon release. If there is a role for law to play in rehabilitation, a thorough exploration of case law as it relates to youth offenders convicted of terrorism offences is required. In addition to examining Canadian jurisprudence and its impact on understanding the challenges faced by youth and young offenders convicted of terrorism offences, it is crucial to underscore the importance of strong and conventional community ties after release. These ties can significantly mitigate further alienation and extremist tendencies. Socio-legal and carceral recommendations are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".