Les principes de détermination de la peine sous la Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents : une intégration des rationalités de droits de l’enfant ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé L’article explore comment les principes de détermination de la peine de la Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents (LSJPA) intègrent les rationalités des droits de l’enfant. L’analyse se structure en quatre sections : les principes fondamentaux des droits de l’enfant en droit pénal, leurs intégrations dans le cadre de la détermination des peines, les limites de cette intégration, et les pistes de solutions proposées pour renforcer la protection des droits des enfants en conflit avec la loi. Bien que la LSJPA intègre certaines rationalités des droits de l’enfant — la réduction du recours à la détention et l'accent mis sur la réhabilitation — des obstacles subsistent, telles que la réforme de 2012, l’assujettissement des jeunes à des peines pour adultes, et les disparités dans l’application des principes de détermination des peines. L’article appelle à une intégration complète de la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant en droit canadien. Summary This article examines whether the sentencing principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) effectively integrate the rationalities of rights of children. The analysis is structured into four sections: an overview of fundamental children's rights in criminal justice, an evaluation of their reflection in the YCJA’s sentencing framework, an exploration of limitations in their integration, and a discussion on potential improvements to enhance the protection rights children in Canada’s youth justice system. While the YCJA incorporates certain child rights —such as reduced reliance on detention and emphasis on rehabilitation—significant limitations persist. These include restrictive legislative amendments introduced in 2012, the possibility of adult sentencing, and disparities in sentencing practices. The article concludes by advocating for the fuller incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child into Canadian law to address these challenges and strengthen the protection of children's rights in the youth justice system.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".