•  
  •  
 

DOI

10.22191/BUUJ/11/1/3

Faculty Sponsor

Dr. Alexandra Moore

Abstract

Are children, who commit adult crimes, deserving of adult punishments? According to the United Nations, not if it harms their well-being. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) adopted by the United Nations in November 1989, states that 1) the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration of all state actions involving children, 2) governments must allot children the protection and care necessary for their well-being, and 3) governmental institutions, services, and facilities that deal with children must uphold adequate standards for the safety, health, and supervision of children. The CRC is the U.N.’s primary treaty on the rights of children, making it a valuable point of reference for the basic human rights children are entitled to. However, one sole U.N. member state, out of 196, has not ratified the CRC: the United States.

This lack of ratification is reflected in the United States’ juvenile incarceration practices. Since the 1990s, the United States’s juvenile justice system has received widespread criticism for harshly punishing juvenile offenders to deter youth crime, particularly by sentencing and incarcerating youths in the adult criminal justice system. In contrast, fellow U.N. member state Canada’s juvenile criminal justice system is largely focused on the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, and limits harsher sentencing practices. In this article, I will conduct a comparative analysis between established laws in Canada and the United States affecting juvenile sentencing and incarceration to determine whether the countries’ juvenile justice systems’ outcomes comply with Article 3 of the CRC. The analysis will show how various policy differences between the two countries impact the well-being of juvenile offenders, within the framework of CRC Article 3 compliance.

Citation Style

Chicago

Download

Share

COinS