Youth Court Judges’ Views of the Youth Justice system: The results of a survey
The use of court
One of the major concerns about the operation of the youth justice system, signaled by the Minister of Justice’s "Strategy" document in May 1998 as something which would be addressed in the YCJA, was the view that there were too many cases coming to youth court in Canada that could better be dealt with outside of the formal court system. During 1998–9, for example, one case was brought to youth court for every 23 youths aged 12 through 17 (inclusive) in the country. The exceptional jurisdiction on this dimension is Quebec in which one case was brought to youth court in 1998–9 for each 50 youths aged 12–17 (inclusive) in the province.
In this context, it is not surprising, as shown in the following table, that Quebec judges were considerably less likely [9] to indicate that they were seeing large numbers of cases that could be dealt with just as adequately elsewhere. [10]
| Proportion of cases that could be dealt with adequately outside of court | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most – all | About half | Few – none | ||||
| Region | Atlantic | Count |
3 0.3 % |
14 48.3 % |
12 41.4 % |
29 100 % |
| Quebec | Count % within Region |
2 9.1 % |
4 18.2 % |
16 72.7 % |
22 100 % |
|
| Ontario | Count % within Region |
8 11.9 % |
29 43.3 % |
30 44.8 % |
67 100 % |
|
| Prairies | Count % within Region |
8 14.8 % |
20 37.0 % |
26 48.1 % |
54 100 % |
|
| BC | Count % within Region |
10 18.9 % |
21 39.6 % |
22 41.5 % |
53 100 % |
|
| Territories | Count % within Region |
1 33.3 % |
2 66.7 % |
3 100 % |
||
| Total | Count % within Region |
32 14 % |
90 39.5 % |
106 46.5 % |
228 100 % |
|
Note: Variation across jurisdictions was not significant.
The comparison between Quebec and the rest of Canada is clearly illustrated in the next table.
| Proportion of cases that could be dealt with adequately outside of court | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most – all | About half | Few – none | ||||
| Quebec compared to Rest of Canada | Quebec | Count |
2 9.1 % |
4 18.2 % |
16 72.7 % |
22 100 % |
| Rest of Canada | Count |
30 14.6 % |
86 41.7 % |
90 43.7 % |
206 100 % |
|
| Total | Count |
32 14.0 % |
90 39.5 % |
106 46.5 % |
228 100 % |
|
Note: Chi–square = 6.83, df=3, p<.05
Judges would appear to attribute the overuse of the court, in part, to the inadequacy of alternative measures or other non–court measures [11]. It was not clear whether these responses referred to an inadequacy in the number of available non–court programs or the frequency in which these programs were being used. Nonetheless, the point was clear: those judges who indicated that large numbers of cases could be dealt with outside of the court were most critical of the unavailability and/or under–use of alternative measures programs. For those judges who hear cases in more than one location, we also asked their views of the adequacy of alternatives in both the smallest as well as the largest locations in which they hear cases [12]. Not surprisingly, judges who indicate that there are few cases coming before them that could be adequately handled outside of the court were more likely to indicate that there were adequate alternative (non–court) programs. [13]
| Adequate alternative measures? | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely yes | Probably yes | No, don’t know | ||||
| Proportion of cases that could be dealt with adequately outside court | Most/almost all/all | Count |
2 6.3 % |
3 9.4 % |
27 84.4 % |
32 100 % |
| About half | Count |
7 7.5 % |
14 15.1 % |
72 77.4 % |
93 100 % |
|
| Few–none | Count |
37 34.6 % |
39 36.4 % |
31 29 % |
107 100 % |
|
| Total | Count |
46 19.8 % |
56 24.1 % |
130 56 % |
232 100 % |
|
Chi–square = 60.77, df=4, p<.001
This relationship holds when one looks separately at the views of Quebec judges, on the one hand, and judges in the rest of Canada, on the other. (Note, however, that almost all Quebec judges were content with the availability of alternative measures.)
| Quebec compared to Rest of Canada | Adequate alternative measures? | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely yes | Probably yes | No, don't know | |||||
| Quebec | Proportion of cases that could be dealt with adequately outside court | Most/almost all/all | Count |
1 50 % |
1 50 % |
2 100 % |
|
| About half | Count |
3 75 % |
1 25 % |
4 100 % |
|||
| Few–none | Count |
15 93.8 % |
1 6.3 % |
16 100 % |
|||
| Total | Count Row percents |
19 86.4 % |
3 13.6 % |
22 100 % |
|||
| Rest of Canada | Proportion of cases that could be dealt with adequately outside court |
Most/almost all/all | Count |
1 3.3 % |
2 6.7 % |
27 90 % |
30 100 % |
| About half | Count |
3 3.5 % |
13 15.1 % |
70 81.4 % |
86 100 % |
||
| Few–none | Count |
22 24.4 % |
37 41.1 % |
31 34.4 % |
90 100 % |
||
| Total | Count |
26 12.6 % |
52 25.2 % |
128 62.1 % |
206 100 % |
||
| Adequate alternative measures? | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely yes | Probably yes | No, don’t know | ||||
| Region | Atlantic | Count |
2 6.7 % |
10 23.3 % |
18 60.0 % |
30 100 % |
| Quebec | Count |
21 87.,5 % |
3 12.5 % |
24 100 % |
||
| Ontario | Count |
7 10.3 % |
17 25.0 % |
44 67.7 % |
68 100 % |
|
| Prairies | Count |
9 16.4 % |
14 25.5 % |
32 58.2 % |
55 100 % |
|
| BC | Count |
7 13.2 % |
11 20.8 % |
35 66.0 % |
53 100 % |
|
| Territory | Count |
1 25.0 % |
3 75.0% |
4 100 % |
||
| Total | Count |
47 20.1 % |
55 23.5 % |
132 56.4 % |
234 100 % |
|
| Adequate alternative measures (smallest community)? | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely yes | Probably yes | No, don’t know | ||||
| Region | Atlantic | Count |
1 4.0 % |
5 20.0% |
19 76.0 % |
25 100 % |
| Quebec | Count |
13 72.2 % |
4 22.2 % |
1 5.6 % |
18 100 % |
|
| Ontario | Count |
4 12.9 % |
6 19.4 % |
21 67.7 % |
31 100 % |
|
| Prairies | Count |
6 14.6 % |
7 17.1 % |
28 68.3 % |
41 100 % |
|
| BC | Count |
3 6.8 % |
8 18.2 % |
33 75.0 % |
44 100 % |
|
| Territory | Count |
1 25.0 % |
3 75.0 % |
4 100 % |
||
| Total | Count |
28 17.2 % |
30 18.4 % |
105 64.4 % |
163 100 % |
|
| Adequate alternative measures? | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely yes | Probably yes | No, don’t know | ||||
| Quebec compared to Rest of Canada | Quebec | Count |
21 87.5 % |
3 12.5 % |
24 100 % |
|
| Rest of Canada | Count |
26 12.4 % |
52 24.8 % |
132 62.9 % |
210 100 % |
|
| Total | Count |
47 20.1 % |
55 23.5 % |
132 56.6 % |
234 100 % |
|
Chi–square = 76.97, df=2, p<.001
| Adequate alternative measures (smallest community)? | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely yes | Probably yes | No, don’t know | ||||
| Quebec compared to Rest of Canada | Quebec | Count |
13 72.2 % |
4 22.2 % |
1 5.6 % |
18 100 % |
| Rest of Canada | Count |
15 10.3 % |
26 15.1 % |
104 77.4 % |
145 100 % |
|
| Total | Count |
28 17.2 % |
30 18.41 % |
105 64.4 % |
163 100 % |
|
Chi–square = 46.33, df=2, p<.001
Overall, it would appear that in every region of Canada other than Quebec, a substantial portion of the respondents thought that many (half or more) of the cases coming before them could have been dealt with "just as adequately (or more adequately) outside of the youth court."
Even in Quebec, where judges were most likely to believe that adequate alternative measures or other "non–court" programs in the community existed, approximately a quarter of the judges indicated that many of the cases they were hearing could be dealt with outside of the court. The proportion holding this view was considerably higher for the rest of Canada.
There were 159 judges who sat in at least two different communities and who rated the adequacy of the "alternative measures or other non–court… measures"
for both their largest and smallest communities.
| Largest community in which judge sits |
Smallest community in which judge sits |
|
|---|---|---|
| Definitely yes | 22% | 18% |
| Probably yes | 25% | 20% |
| Probably not | 26% | 25% |
| Definitely not | 27% | 38% |
| Total | 100% | 100% |
Treating the four responses as a "scale" (running from 1=definitely yes to 4=definitely no), judges saw non–court alternatives as being more adequate in the larger community (mean = 2.58) than in the smaller community (2.82; t = 3.08, df=158, p <.01). Interestingly, this rather straightforward finding did not hold when I looked at the responses from judges who sat in only one community (or whose communities were of roughly the same size).
Judges were also asked [14] whether they thought that youths who had been through the court process had benefited from the overall experience in court. As can be seen in the table below, only in Quebec did a majority of judges think that most youths benefited from the court experience.
| Proportion of youth for whom court had beneficial impact | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All, almost all, most | About half | A few, almost none, none | ||||
| Region | Atlantic | Count |
9 34.6 % |
14 53.8 % |
3 11.5 % |
26 100 % |
| Quebec | Count |
15 65.2 % |
7 30.4 % |
1 4.3 % |
23 100 % |
|
| Ontario | Count |
19 33.9 % |
24 42.9 % |
13 23.2 % |
56 100 % |
|
| Prairies | Count |
10 22.2 % |
23 51.1 % |
12 26.7 % |
45 100 % |
|
| BC | Count |
10 24.4 % |
19 46.3 % |
12 29.3 % |
41 100 % |
|
| Territory | Count |
2 50 % |
2 50 % |
4 100 % |
||
| Total | Count |
63 32.3 % |
89 45.6 % |
43 22.1 % |
195 100 % |
|
Chi square (excluding the territories) [15]= 17.87, df=8, p<.05
Proportion of youth for whom court had beneficial impact |
Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All, almost all, most | About half | A few, almost none, none | ||||
| Quebec compared to Rest of Canada | Quebec | Count |
15 65.2 % |
7 30.4 % |
1 4.3 % |
23 100 % |
| Rest of Canada | Count |
48 27.9 % |
82 47.7 % |
42 24.4 % |
172 100 % |
|
| Total | Count |
63 32.3 % |
89 45.6 % |
43 22.1 % |
195 100 % |
|
Chi square = 13.77, df=2, p<.001
However, the belief that court had a beneficial impact on youths was not related to the judge having a welfare orientation in the imposition of custodial sentences. A "welfare orientation" in the use of custody at sentencing was determined by combining the responses of the judge to three questions: the proportion of cases in which the youth needed a rehabilitative program available in custody, the proportion of cases in which the youth was out of control and needed a custodial sentence to break the cycle of behaviour, and the proportion of cases in which the youth’s living conditions were such that it was necessary to arrange for a more stable environment. [16]
| Proportion of youth for whom court had beneficial impact | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All, almost all, most | About half | A few, almost none, none | ||||
| Welfare orientation in the use of Custody | Low | Count Row percents |
11 23.4 % |
24 51.1 % |
12 25.5 % |
47 100 % |
| Medium | Count Row percents |
26 35.1 % |
33 44.6 % |
15 20.3 % |
74 100 % |
|
| High | Count Row percents |
26 35.6 % |
30 41.1 % |
17 23.3 % |
73 100 % |
|
| Total | Count Row percents |
63 32.5 % |
87 44.8 % |
44 22.7 % |
194 100 % |
|
Chi–square = 2.58, df=4, not significant
- [9] I have used standard "statistical tests" to evaluate statements such as
"more likely"
or"less likely"
etc. Variation between groups can be explained in two distinct ways. On the one hand, it can be thought of as"real"
(i.e., there is a genuine difference between the groups). On the other hand, it can be seen as occurring"by chance."
If a coin was flipped 10 times and it came up heads 7 of these 10 times, we would probably think that it came up heads more than the "expected" score of 5"by chance."
Alternatively, if we were to flip the coin 1000 times, and it came up heads 700 times, we would probably be more likely to say that the coin was, in some way, more likely to come up heads."More likely"
can be quantified by saying that the chances of it being"this extreme or more extreme"
is very small – e.g., p <.01. In normal language, one is unlikely to get an "effect" this large (or larger) completely by chance. In probability language, the probability of getting an effect this large or larger purely by chance is less than one in a hundred. Hence, an effect that is "significant" is an effect that is unlikely to be due to the variation that we expect, and see, within each group. In other words, a "real" difference exists between the groups. - [10] Question A1
- [11] Question A2
- [12] Question A2a
- [13] Table not included
- [14] Question H1
- [15] The territories were excluded from this test (and many other tests) of significance for methodological reasons. The small number of judges sampled from the territories does not allow for statistical tests of this type without producing biased estimates. However, the descriptive data are included for descriptive purposes.
- [16] These were all part of Question D4 concerning the reasons for custody.
- Date modified: