Hey everyone, YCR back with another blog about Rm. 444! It's only my second visit, but the action in the courtroom doesn't change by much. The youth are dressed the same as the first group and are mostly those of the minority. However this time there appears to be a much greater number of boys than there are girls.
As I was sitting in this busy courtroom on a Friday morning, there was one particular case that intrigued me. He was a 17-year-old white male, who plead guilty to tobacco use and shoplifting. He stole a stick of deodorant from superstore and ended up in Rm. 444. This leads me to the arguments his representative made for him in court. His lawyer acknowledged that he had no intent to pay and that he ran across the parking lot, until a manager caught him. His lawyer then stated, that the youth had: no previous record, a job as a truck unloader, a stable environment (lives with roommates) and is taking correspondents to finish high school as well as having aspirations to be a musician. This is a very good example of the use of risk assessment. The mentioning of all that is good in his life, is trying to show that he is really an all around good guy, and the incident was just a mistake. All of these facts presented are trying to show that it is unlikely of him to re-offend so the judge should go easy on him. This is a good approach in our justice system because it really is truly possible that a good person can get caught doing something bad. They really do have a lot of things going for them, but they mess up either because of peer pressure, boredom, or just the need for excitement. The risk assessment gives the youth the opportunity to prove that they are really good individuals that deserve a second chance. In this case, the judge concurred and considered the youth’s discharge because she said, "I can also see the potential, and he just needs to grow up." The terms of his release were; keep the peace (good behavior), 40 hours of community service, report to probation officer, letter of apology to the owner of superstore, as well as a letter to the judge herself and lastly EJS. I had no idea what EJS stood for, and for those of you who are also unsure of what EJS stands for and what it implies, I found its definition on the YRAP website and it is listed below. It is a program youth have to apply to and get accepted into.
EJS is a program outside of the court system, where an offender accepts responsibility for their actions and is given a list of consequences intended to answer for any harm caused. This gives them a second chance to take steps to correct a situation before entering the formal court process. If they successfully complete the conditions involved the charges will be withdrawn, and they avoid a Criminal Record.
- http://www.yrap.org/principles/
The other part of his probation that I wanted to point out was the letter to the judge. In the courtroom, the judge asked the individual to include in his letter the following things; "Why did you do this? How has it affected others around you? What have you learned from this? What steps will you take not to be involved in something like this again?" I thought this was a great way to let the victim speak. It allows the judge to have a greater insight about the particular individual, rather than him just being a number. She is able to get a greater understanding of why he thought it was necessary to steal an eight-dollar stick of deodorant rather than just pay for it. She also is able to understand if he truly grasps who has been affected by his behavior including how offending has affected himself.
This is an observation that may not be an acceptable one to come up with after only two visits, however, it is a bit strange that out of all the cases I have witnessed (approx. 40) the only one where the offender was viewed as a good guy who had made a mistake and was asked to share his reasoning’s (via a letter to the crown), was a white male. The other cases I saw, which were all or mostly minorities, were given the similar punishment of community service, probation periods, etc and were treated as though they were likely to re-offend. They were not required to answer questions like who has been affected by this behavior? Or how the offending behavior has affected them? I am curious as to why I haven't seen the individuals of the minority groups be asked to explain their behavior, or how it has affected them. So, I’d like for you to keep this observation in mind, and I will see if it progresses throughout my next few visits.
As for right now, that is all from your YCR, until next time!
No comments:
Post a Comment