Youth crime in Canada, 2014 Youth crime in Canada, 2014

by Mary K. Allen and Tamy Superle

Start of text box

End of text box

Youth criminal behaviour is a major concern for most societies, specifically when it comes to how youth are treated within the justice system.^{Note 1} For example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a framework for the treatment of accused under age 18, stipulating that states recognize the rights of children accused of crimes to be “treated in a manner ... which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society” (United Nations 1989). In addition, crime prevention initiatives often focus on young people with the hope that programs will have long-term impacts on crime reduction. Research internationally and over time has shown that youth are more likely to be accused of crime than adults (Ullmer and Steffensmeier 2014). Moreover, research has shown that the majority of adult offenders committed their first criminal acts as youth, and only a minority of offenders commit crime for the first time as adults (Farrington et al. 2012; Piquero et. al. 2012).

Not all youth offenders, however, are destined for a life of crime. Many youth who commit crimes may be one-time offenders committing minor crimes such as mischief or petty theft, and many “age out” of criminal behaviour as they transition into adulthood (Massoglia and Uggen 2010). In Canada, it has long been recognized that youth (aged 12 to 17) accused of a crime should be handled differently by the justice system than their adult counterparts, since it is felt that those under the age of 18 lack the maturity of adults, are considered less blameworthy or culpable than adults and hence should not be treated in the same way (Davis-Barron 2009; Department of Justice 2013; Farrington et al. 2012; Howell et al. 2013). In 1991, Canada ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights which addresses the treatment of youth accused of crime.

In 2003, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) replaced the Young Offenders Act and marked a significant shift in the way that the Canadian criminal justice system dealt with youth accused of criminal activity (see Text box 1 for more details). One of the foundations of the YCJA is the principle of “fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity” (YCJA, s. 3(1)(b)(ii)).

The Youth Criminal Justice Act provides for more age-appropriate responses to youth crime, acknowledging that extrajudicial measures which do not involve the formal court system “are often the most appropriate and effective way to address youth crime [and] allow for effective and timely interventions focused on correcting offending behaviour” (YCJA, s.4(b)). The Act aims to divert youth offenders involved in less serious types of crime with extrajudicial measures, and, as a result, reduce “the over-reliance on incarceration for non-violent young persons”. At the same time, the Act allows for more serious consequences for violent crime, especially for the most serious offenders (YCJA, Preamble).

This Juristat article uses data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey to examine youth crime reported by police in 2014. In addition, the report uses data from the Integrated Criminal Courts Survey (ICCS) to chart trends in court processing of youth from 2000 to 2014, including the period before and after the introduction of the YCJA in 2003.

Start of text box

End of text box

Youth crime rate

Police-reported youth crime rate lower than the rate for young adults aged 18 to 24, but double that of older adults aged 25 and over

In total, there were almost 101,000 youth aged 12 to 17 accused of Criminal Code violations reported by police in 2014, resulting in a youth crime rate of 4,322 youth accused per 100,000 youth population (Table 1).^{Note 3} While youth made up 7% of the Canadian population, they comprised 13% of persons accused of crime in 2014.^{Note 4} The number of youth accused includes youth who were either charged or recommended for charging, as well as those who were diverted from the formal criminal justice system through means that include warnings, cautions and referrals to community programs.

The overall rate of youth accused of Criminal Code offences in 2014 was 1.8 times higher than the rate of adult accused (4,322 vs. 2,452). When comparing youth and adult crime, however, it is important to distinguish between young adults (defined here as those between the ages of 18 to 24) and older adults 25 years of age and over. The rate of youth accused of crime was, in fact, lower than the rate for young adults aged 18 to 24 (5,428 per 100,000 young adults), but over twice the accused rate for older adults (2,048 per 100,000 older adults).

In addition to the youth who were accused of violations under the Criminal Code in 2014, there were approximately 15,300 youth accused in drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, for a rate of 657 per 100,000 youth.^{Note 5} This was about three times the rate for older adults aged 25 and over (215 per 100,000 older adults), but substantially lower than the rate for young adults aged 18 to 24 (1,108 per 100,000 young adults).

In 2014, a total of about 1,200 youth were accused in Criminal Code traffic incidents, and about 5,000 accused in other federal statute violations, which includes those accused of violating the Youth Criminal Justice Act (see Text box 1 for description of YCJA offences).

Start of text box

End of text box

Police-reported youth crime rate on the decline

The police-reported youth crime rate has fallen steadily since 2006, continuing a longer term downward trend since peaking in 1991. The youth crime rate fell through the 1990s, then increased slightly during the first few years of this century before resuming its decline (Chart 1). Between 2000 and 2014, the police-reported youth crime rate declined 42%, a notably larger decrease than the drop in the overall crime rate (-34%) over the same time period (Chart 2). This drop in the youth crime rate was primarily driven by a large (51%) decrease in the rate of youth accused of property crime, particularly in theft of $5,000 and under and break and enter.

The severity of police-reported youth crime, as measured by the YCSI, fell at the same rate as the youth crime rate over this same period. Between 2000 and 2014, the YCSI fell 42% compared to a 38% drop for the overall Crime Severity Index (See definition in Text box 7).

In contrast to the decline in the rate of youth accused in Criminal Code incidents (excluding traffic), the rate of youth accused in drug offences (under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) was 11% higher in 2014 than in 2000. However, youth drug crime has been falling since it peaked in 2011. The trend in drug crime has been mainly driven by changes in the rate of youth accused in incidents of cannabis possession, which accounted for about 80% of youth accused of drug offences in 2014.

Nature of crimes committed by youth

The most frequent criminal offences committed by youth were theft of $5,000 and under, mischief, common assault, cannabis possession and offences related to the administration of justice

For the most part, police-reported youth crime involves relatively minor offences. The most frequent criminal offences committed by youth in 2014 were theft of $5,000 and under (960 per 100,000 youth), mischief (574), and common assault (546) (one of the less serious violent crimes). The rate of cannabis possession was also high (531), as were the combined rates of youth accused of offences related to the administration justice together with violations under the YCJA (565 and 207 respectively) (Table 1).^{Note 7}

Youth were notably more likely than adults to be accused in incidents of robbery, theft, break and enter, sexual assault and sexual violations against children

While differences in youth and adult accused rates varied by offence, generally speaking, rates of property crimes (such as break and enter or theft) were highest among youth (Chart 3). Young adults aged 18 to 24, by comparison, had the highest rates for violent crime and other Criminal Code offences (such as disturbing the peace, offences related to the administration of justice and drug offences).^{Note 8}

For some specific offences, however, youth had notably higher rates than other age groups. In 2014, youth were more likely than adults (both younger and older) to be accused of theft of $5,000 and under, break and enter, sexual assault level 1 and sexual violations against children. In addition, they also had the highest rates for robbery, uttering threats and motor vehicle theft as compared to adults.

Police-reported crime highest at age 17, and even younger for some offences

According to 2014 police-reported data, the peak age at which individuals were accused of crimes was 17 years (Table 2). The rate of youth accused at 12 years of age was lowest at 1,317 per 100,000 while those 17 years of age had a rate of 6,242 per 100,000 (Chart 4).^{Note 9} The relationship between age and crime has been noted in other studies in Canada and elsewhere, and a number of explanations can be found in the literature. Research suggests, for example, that desistance from crime is a result of a combination of psychological and social factors. These factors include brain development and maturity, as well as transitions into adulthood with accompanying employment and changes in family situations, social context and peer groups (Farrington et al. 2012; Howell et al. 2013; Steinberg et al. 2015; Sweeten et al. 2013; Ullmer and Steffensmeier 2014).

For some specific crimes, accused rates were highest before age 17 (Table 2, Chart 5).^{Note 10} In particular, in 2014, the rate of persons accused of sexual assault and sexual violations against children was highest among younger youth (see Text box 3).

In incidents of motor vehicle theft, uttering threats, robbery and theft of $5,000 and under, accused rates were highest between the ages of 15 and 17, and then declined. Rates of assault (all types), however, were highest among youth at age 17, and remained high among young adults aged 18 to 24. For disturbing the peace and administration of justice offences, rates increased with age among youth and were highest among young adults.

For drug offences, rates of accused increased through adolescence, with the highest rates of cannabis offences recorded between age 17 and 19. However, crime related to other drugs such as cocaine or heroin was highest among young adults, especially those aged 20 to 24.

Use of weapons in police-reported youth crime

Weapons (knives, firearms, or other weapons such as a club or blunt instrument) were slightly more likely to be present in violent incidents involving youth accused than those where no youth was involved (21% vs. 16%).^{Note 11} Regardless of the age of the accused, very few criminal incidents in 2014 involved a firearm. A firearm was present in 2.8% of violent incidents involving at least one youth accused, and 1.5% of violent incidents involving only adult accused.

Weapons were not present in most violent crimes occurring on school property, either during or after supervised hours. In 2014, 13% of violent incidents involving youth accused that took place on school grounds at any time involved weapons, primarily knives or blunt instruments (1% involved a firearm or firearm-like weapon). Three-quarters (77%) involved physical force or threats.

Start of text box

End of text box

Start of text box

End of text box

Police-reported youth crime at school

About one in ten police-reported crimes involving a youth accused occurred at school

According to police-reported statistics in 2014, a private residence was the most frequent location for all criminal incidents, regardless of whether the accused was an adult or a youth. In addition, 12% of criminal incidents involving at least one youth accused occurred on school property (10% at school during or just outside regular school hours or during a school-sanctioned extracurricular activity such as at a supervised school dance or sporting event).

Cannabis possession and common assault most frequent crimes committed by youth at school

Among police-reported criminal incidents in 2014 where youth were accused, one in five (19%) violent criminal incidents and more than one quarter (27%) of drug crimes occurred at school during or just outside supervised hours or during school-sanctioned extracurricular activities (Chart 7). In particular, the most frequent offences involving youth accused occurring at school during supervised activity were cannabis possession and common assault, representing 23% and 22% (respectively) of all incidents committed by youth at school. Uttering threats constituted another 12%. Property crime by youth occurred less often at school (4%) (Chart 8).

An examination of the times of the day when criminal incidents occurred also highlights differences between youth and adult crime. Specifically, violent incidents involving youth accused occurred most frequently at noon hour (between 12 and 1 pm) or shortly after school (between 3 pm and 4 pm) (Chart 9). Violent crimes in which only an adult or adults were accused did not peak during these periods and were generally highest during evening hours (5 pm to midnight).

Property and drug crimes involving youth accused did not show similar peak activity at noon and after school. Instead, property crime tended to occur in the late afternoon and drug crimes at night whether there was a youth accused or not.

Co-offending among youth

Youth more likely than adults to be involved in crimes involving more than one accused

Consistent with previous research (Carrington et al. 2013), co-offending, where there are multiple individuals accused in a criminal incident, is relatively uncommon in police-reported crime in Canada. Of the 709,685 cleared criminal incidents reported by police in 2014, 10% involved more than one accused person (co-offending). Among criminal incidents involving youth accused in 2014, however, one quarter (26%) involved more than one accused. By comparison, in incidents involving adult accused in which no youth accused was involved, a much smaller proportion involved more than one accused in the criminal act (7%) (Table 3).^{Note 15}

Because co-offending was more frequent in incidents involving youth, a relatively high proportion of youth accused were co-offenders compared to their young adult and older adult counterparts. Among all youth accused of crime in 2014, 42% were co-offenders compared to 24% of their young adult and 14% of their adult counterparts. The differences among the various age groups are especially pronounced when looking specifically at group crime (defined as incidents which involve 3 or more offenders): 19% of youth accused were involved in group crime compared to 8% of young adult and 3% of adult accused.

The majority (75%) of youth co-offenders were accused in criminal incidents involving other accused who were youth or child(ren) under age 12. One-quarter (25%) of youth co-offenders were accused in incidents where there was also an adult accused. Co-offending with adult(s) was more common in violent crimes and drug crimes, where 31% and 36% (respectively) of youth co-offenders were accused alongside adult(s). Co-offending with adult(s) was less common for youth co-offenders in property crimes (21%).^{Note 16}

Co-offending most common among youth accused in incidents involving property crime

Co-offending for youth differed by the type of offence and was most frequent in incidents involving property crime, where 57% of accused were co-offenders (Chart 10). This was most common for those accused of breaking and entering (77%) (Table 4).^{Note 17}

As with adults, youth accused in police-reported violent incidents generally committed crimes alone; just over a quarter (28%) were co-offenders. However, the majority of youth accused in some of the most serious offences were co-offenders. In particular, 75% of youth accused in robberies, 64% of those accused in homicides or attempted murders, 62% of accused in incidents of serious sexual assault (levels 2 and 3) and 57% in incidents of aggravated assault (level 3) were co-offenders.

Among adults, co-offending was generally less frequent than among youth for most police-reported offences. A notable exception was for drug crimes, where co-offending was similarly frequent among young adults aged 18 to 24 and youth: 50% of youth accused were co-offenders compared to 48% of young adults. Older adults (aged 25 and over) accused in drug offences were less likely to co-offend (33%).

Start of text box

End of text box

Charging of youth and use of extrajudicial measures by police

Youth less likely to be charged by police than adults

One of the goals of the 2003 YCJA was to divert youth away from the court system, especially when they were accused of relatively minor offences (see Text box 1). Given this goal, the YCJA explicitly lays out a variety of options available to police to clear an incident without having to charge the accused. For example, police may give a verbal warning or a written caution, or the accused may be referred to a community or extrajudicial sanctions program. As with adult accused, the charge may be cleared through ‘other means’, such as incidents where departmental discretion is exercised by police or where the complainant declines to lay charges. In 2014, 48% of youth accused in criminal incidents were charged, compared to 63% of adults. However, the difference in charge rates for adults and youth varied by type of offence (Chart 11).

The YCJA promotes the use of extrajudicial measures to divert youth from the court system primarily for lesser offences. Charge rates for youth accused in 2014 reflect this. More serious offences (those with the most severe penalties), such as homicide, attempted murder, sexual assault (levels 2 and 3), aggravated assault and robbery most often resulted in charges in 2014. Those offences that are generally considered less severe (with more minor penalties), such as common assault (43%), criminal harassment (22%), mischief (29%) and disturbing the peace (5%) were less likely to result in charges (Table 6).^{Note 19}

While youth were about as likely as adults to be charged in more serious violent incidents, they were less likely to be charged in relatively less serious violent incidents. For example, youth accused in incidents of criminal harassment (22%) and common assault (43%) were much less likely to be charged than adults (52% and 63% respectively) (Chart 12). The proportion of accused charged in incidents of sexual assault level 1 and sexual offences against children was also lower for youth than for adults. Charge rates also differed between younger and older youth accused: for youth accused of sexual offences, the charge rate for those aged 12 to 15 was lower than the charge rate for those aged 16 to 17.^{Note 20}

While the YCJA aims to reduce charging for lesser offences, the proportion of youth accused who were charged in non-violent incidents was not substantially lower than for adults for some crimes (Chart 12). The proportion charged in incidents involving the more serious property offences of break and enter and motor vehicle theft were high for both youth and adults, and similarly low for both youth and adults in the less serious non-violent offences of disturbing the peace and mischief. The non-violent offences where youth were notably less likely than adults to be charged were theft (both over and under $5,000) and drug offences.

For all categories of offences (violent, property, etc.), the proportion of accused who were cleared by charge increased with age (Chart 13).

Warnings and cautions are the most common alternative to charging youth

As noted above, the YCJA outlines a variety of extrajudicial measures that can be used by police in lieu of charging a youth with an offence. When charges were not laid or recommended in relation to a Criminal Code offence, youth were most likely to be cleared with a warning or caution (25%).^{Note 21} Warnings or cautions were most frequently given to youth accused in incidents of disturbing the peace (59%), cannabis possession (43%), criminal harassment (42%), theft of $5,000 and under (38%) and mischief (36%) (Table 7).

Another six percent of youth accused in criminal incidents were referred by police to community programs (such as substance abuse programs), or to a formal YCJA extrajudicial sanctions program. Finally, about one in five youth accused (21%) was cleared by other means. For these accused, the most common reasons reported for the clearance of the incident were when a complainant declined to proceed with charges or through departmental discretion.

Youth less likely to be charged when co-offending, unless there was also an adult accused

According to police reported statistics in 2014, 51% of youth were charged when they were the sole accused in crimes (excluding traffic). When there were other accused involved, 42% of youth were charged (Table 8). However, when there was an adult accused involved, youth were more likely to be charged (55%) than when the other(s) accused in the incident were not adults (38%).^{Note 22}

For violent offences, 50% of youth accused were charged when they were the lone offender, but 56% were charged when co-offending. Two-thirds (67%) were charged in violent crimes when co-offending with an adult compared to 51% when co-offending with other youth. Charge rates for youth were higher when an adult co-offender was present in almost all violent offences.

Among youth accused in property crimes, the presence of another accused had little impact on the charge rate (38% for single accused, 39% co-offending), unless an adult accused was involved (54%).

Start of text box

End of text box

Trends since the introduction of the YCJA

The introduction of the YCJA in 2003 had a notable impact on the number of youth accused entering the various stages of the justice system

The overall police-reported crime rate and the rate of youth accused of crime have followed similar downward trends since the early 2000s. Between 2000 and 2014, the rate of youth accused of police-reported crime declined by 42%, while the overall rate of police-reported criminal incidents fell 34% (Boyce 2015). Youth crime has followed a similar decline, with its highest rates recorded in 1991 (Chart 1). In 2003, when the YCJA was introduced, the overall police-reported crime rate was at its highest point since 2000, following small increases in the first years of this century (+2% between 2000 and 2003). Youth crime had also increased slightly in those years (+5%).

While the decline in youth accused of crime since 2003 is a continuation of a longer term trend, there was a notable drop in the number of youth formally charged with crime with the introduction of the YCJA. This decrease in formal charges was followed by a decline in the number of youth appearing in court and the number sentenced to custody, as increased numbers of youth were diverted away from the criminal justice system (Chart 14).^{Note 23}

Drop in the proportion of youth charged by police coincided with the introduction of the YCJA

The most immediate impact of the YCJA was on the proportion of youth charged by police. In the three years prior to the 2003 introduction of the YCJA, the percentage of youth accused who were formally charged had declined slightly from 59% to 56%. In 2003, however, the rate dropped sharply to 45% and has ranged between 41% and 45% in the years since (Chart 15).

One of the objectives of the YCJA was to reduce the number of youth charged and tried primarily for minor offences. This objective is clearly reflected in the 2003 drop in the percentage of youth who were charged with specific offences. The proportion of youth accused charged in a violent criminal incident decreased from 58% to 49% between 2002 and 2003; meanwhile, the proportion charged in property crimes fell more substantially, from 52% to 38%. Similarly, the proportion charged in incidents of cannabis possession (the most common drug offence) fell from 43% to 24% of youth accused. Moreover, much of the decline in charges among youth accused in violent incidents is influenced by incidents involving common assault, also considered a less serious offence.^{Note 24}

Gradual decline since 2003 in the percentage of youth found guilty and sentenced to custody

In addition to the large drop in 2003 in the number of youth charged by police, and the subsequent decreases in the number of youth court cases (Chart 14), there was a gradual decline between 2000/2001 and 2013/2014 in the percentage of youth who were found guilty in court.^{Note 25} Between 2000/2001 and 2013/2014, the percentage of youth court cases resulting in a guilty decision fell from 66% to 54%. Instead, more youth court cases were stayed or withdrawn over this time period, possibly because of court referrals to extrajudicial programs.^{Note 26} (Chart 16).

Sentencing guidelines are another key component of the YCJA. As such, there has also been a decline in the number of youth sentenced to custody since the introduction of the YCJA. Between 2000/2001 and 2013/2014, the proportion of guilty youth who were sentenced to custody fell from 28% to 15% (Chart 17). While there was a noticeable drop in custodial sentences in 2003/2004 with the introduction of the YCJA (four percentage points), the decrease was not as marked a change as was seen in the proportion of youth charged by police.

Summary

Police-reported youth crime, like overall police-reported crime in Canada, has been on the decline since 1991. In 2014, youth aged 12 to 17 were more likely to be accused of crime than adults. They were less likely, however, to be accused than young adults aged 18 to 24, especially for violent offences.

The most frequent offences among youth in 2014 were theft of $5,000 and under, mischief and common assault. While the rate of individuals accused of crime (excluding traffic) was highest at age 17 in 2014, for some offences the rates were highest at younger ages. This was especially the case for sexual offences, uttering threats and theft.

With the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in 2003, the proportion of youth accused who were charged by police dropped substantially as more youth were dealt with by extrajudicial measures, especially for less serious offences. Extrajudicial measures include warnings, cautions and referrals to community or formal extrajudicial sanctions programs as outlined in the YCJA.

With fewer youth charged after the introduction of the YCJA, there were subsequently fewer youth prosecuted in youth court. In addition, there was also a decreased proportion of guilty youth sentenced to custody after the introduction of the YCJA.

Start of text box

End of text box

Survey description

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey

The UCR Survey was developed in 1962 with the cooperation and assistance of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. UCR Survey data reflects reported crime that has been substantiated through police investigation from all separate federal, provincial and municipal police services in Canada. There are currently two versions of the UCR Survey: aggregate and incident-based microdata.

Uniform Crime Reporting (aggregate) Survey

The aggregate UCR Survey includes the number of reported offences, actual offences, offences cleared by charge or cleared otherwise, persons charged (by sex and by adult/youth breakdown) and those not charged. It does not include victim or incident characteristics. Coverage of the UCR Survey in 2014 was at 99.9% of the caseload of all police services in Canada. Data from the aggregate UCR Survey are used in this report for comparisons in youth crime rates over time. Information for total youth crime is available back to 1977. More detailed aggregate data on youth crime by type of offences is available back to 1998.

Detailed data tables containing information on youth crime using data from the aggregate UCR are available through Statistics Canada CANSIM:

Table 252-0051 Incident-based crime statistics, by detailed violations, annual
Table 252-0052 Crime Severity Index and weighted clearance rates, annual

Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey

The Incident-based UCR2 Survey captures detailed information on individual criminal incidents reported to police, including characteristics of victims, accused persons and incidents. Unless otherwise mentioned, all analysis in this report (including all data in the tables) is based on Incident-based Survey counts. Police services switch over from the Aggregate to the Incident-based Survey as their records management systems become capable of providing this level of detail. Coverage of the UCR2 Survey for 2014 represented 99.6% of the population in Canada.

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Trend Database

The UCR2 Trend Database contains historical data, which permits the analysis of trends from 2009 to 2014 in the characteristics of the incidents, accused and victims, such as weapon use and accused-victim relationships. This database includes respondents accounting for 99.2% of the population of Canada in 2014.

Homicide Survey

The Homicide Survey collects police-reported data on the characteristics of all homicide incidents, victims and accused persons in Canada.

The Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS)

The Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) is administered by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (Statistics Canada) in collaboration with provincial and territorial government departments responsible for criminal courts in Canada. The survey collects statistical information on adult and youth court cases involving Criminal Code and other federal statute charges. Data contained in this article represent the youth court portion of the survey. The individuals involved are persons aged 12 to 17 years (up to the 18th birthday) at the time of the offence. All youth courts in Canada have reported data to the youth component of the survey since the 1991/1992 fiscal year. The primary unit of analysis is a case. A case is defined as one or more charges against an accused person or company that were processed by the courts at the same time and received a final decision. A case combines all charges against the same person having one or more key overlapping dates (date of offence, date of initiation, date of first appearance, date of decision, or date of sentencing) into a single case.

Detailed data tables

Table 1 Persons accused of crime for selected offences, by age group of accused, Canada, 2014

Table 2 Persons accused of crime for selected offences, by detailed age group of accused, Canada, 2014

Table 3 Prevalence of co-offending by age group, Canada, incident and accused counts, Criminal Code offences (excluding traffic), 2014

Table 4 Percentage of accused in incidents involving multiple accused, by most serious violation, Canada, 2014

Table 5 Proportion of accused of crime that were male, by age group and offence, Canada, 2014

Table 6 Percentage of accused charged, by age group and most serious violation, Canada, 2014

Table 7 Proportion of youth accused charged or cleared by other means, by most serious violation, Canada, 2014

Table 8 Percentage of youth accused charged, by co-offending and most serious violation, Canada, 2014

Table 9 Persons accused of crime by type of crime, by age group of accused, by province and territory, 2014

Table 10 Persons accused of crime for selected offences, by age group of accused, by province and territory, 2014

Table 11 Percentage of accused charged, by age group, Criminal Code offences (excluding traffic), Canada, 2014

References

Bala, Nicholas, Peter Carrington and Julian Roberts. 2009. “Evaluating the Youth Criminal Justice Act after five years: A qualified success.” Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice.

Boyce, Jillian. 2015. “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2014.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002.

Carrington, Peter, Shannon Brennan, Anthony Matarazzo and Marian Radulescu. 2013. “Co-offending in Canada.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002.

Davis-Barron, Sherri. 2009. Canadian Youth and the Criminal Law. Markham, Ontario. LexisNexis.

Department of Justice Canada. 2013. “The Youth Criminal Justice Act: Summary and background.” Catalogue no. J2-375/2013E-PDF.

Farrington, David, Rolf Loeber and James Howell. 2012. “Young adult offenders: The need for more effective legislative options and justice processing.” Criminology & Public Policy. Vol 11, no 4.

Finkelhor, David, Richard Ormrod and Mark Chaffin. 2009. “Juveniles who commit sex offences against minors.” Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Howell, James, Barry Feld, Daniel Mears, David Farrington, Rolf Loeber and David Petechuk. 2013. “Young offenders and an effective justice system response: What should happen, and what we need to know: Criminal careers, justice policy, and prevention.” Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy and Prevention. Loeber, Rolf and David Farrington (eds.). New York, NY. Oxford University Press.

Massoglia, Michael and Christopher Uggen. 2010. “Settling down and aging out: Toward an interactionist theory of desistance and the transition to adulthood.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 116, no. 2.

Piquero, Alex, Lila Kazemian and David Hawkins. 2012. “Criminal career patterns.” Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy and Prevention. Loeber, Rolf and David Farrington (eds.). New York, NY. Oxford University Press.

Steinberg, Laurence, Elizabeth Cauffman and Kathryn Monahan. 2015. “Psychosocial maturity and desistance from crime in a sample of serious juvenile offenders.” Juvenile Justice Bulletin. March 2015. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S. Department of Justice.

Sweeten, Gary, Alex Piquero and Laurence Steinberg. 2013. “Age and the explanation of crime, revisited.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Vol. 42, no. 6.

Ulmer, Jeffery and Darrell Steffensmeier. 2014. “The age and crime relationship: Social variation, social explanations.” The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology: On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality. Beaver, Barnes and Brian Boutwell (Eds.), London. Sage Publications Ltd.

United Nations. 1989. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva. United Nations.