B. Executive summary
Since the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984, public criticism and a sensational press have pressed legislators into frequent and important changes to the Act. While some of the changes reflected needed house cleaning and other amendments were somewhat progressive, many of the changes given the highest profile increased the penalties that were available for serious offences. The changes were motivated by the perceived need to respond to public criticisms that the Act was lenient.
There have been three rounds of amendments to the Act since its proclamation (Hylton, 1994). The changes included:

• In 1986,
  the three year maximum sentence was extended in the case of youths who committed a subsequent offence while still under sentence for a previous offence,
• the publication of names of dangerous offenders who were at large was permitted.
  In 1992,
• the maximum disposition for first degree murder was increased from three to five years,
• parole for young offenders convicted of murder in adult court was reduced in order to encourage the more frequent transfer of young offenders to adult court,
• the test for transfer to adult court was changed to make the protection of the public the paramount consideration.
  In 1994,
• the transfer to adult court provisions were changed to make transfers presumptive for those age 16 and 17 years charged with serious violent offence,
• the maximum sentence for first and second murder was increased to ten and seven years respectively,
• and the period before parole eligibility for those transferred to adult court and convicted of murder was extended.

The pursuit of public confidence through punitive means appears to have been futile. Amendments to transfer and other provisions have been made before there was time to evaluate the impact of the previous amendments. Yet public opinion appears to be unchanged - the myths of leniency continue to abound as get tough measures are seemingly forgotten immediately.

The fact is that public attitudes appear not to have been changed through legislation. At the same time, the research evidence indicates that public attitudes about young offender issues are not so simple as some would suggest. Indeed, the majority of the public still place rehabilitation as the primary objective of the young offender system. While they support rehabilitation, they also underestimate the harshness of the young offender system as well. Their notion that the system is excessively lenient is dependent on a distorted view, but one which is easily acquired from current media coverage about youth crime.

This brief reviews what we think is the most important issue in criminal justice today: the tendency of legislators to misinterpret public attitudes and the belief that punitive legislation will satiate those who promote deterrence as the cornerstone of youth corrections. We argue that the moderation reflected in the Declaration of Principles section of the YOA are good and that these principles must be protected through public education initiatives.

In the companion document, Background Information, Analysis and Positions, we review many of the issues relating to the YOA that have been debated since before the legislation was adopted. We provide our analysis, review some relevant research, and state our positions. We show that youth crime is not in crisis in Canada, sentences to custody for young people are as frequent and often longer than for adults, and young people are being charged for minor offences that would have brought a police warning in the past. We provide evidence that influencing social factors such as poverty, education, employment and addictions are far more important than punishment in reducing and preventing crime. Indeed, we point out that criminal justice legislation is unable to address any of the important factors that are associated with crime.

Punitive measures are measures of despair. They reflect our frustration with youth and an ageing population that fears youth more and tolerate youth less. But measures of despair do not breed confidence in the justice system nor do they act to reduce criminal activity. They act to build further divisions between generations and allow the older generations to ignore the increasingly difficult economic, employment, and otherwise highly stressed environments that our children are raised in today.

Many organizations in the voluntary sector, including the John Howard Society, see community education as an important part of their purpose. They will gladly join with the federal government to promote community understanding of the limits of criminal law and corrections as agents of social control and the effective alternatives which build strong healthy communities for our young people.

If governments are to work to provide a safe and just society for young people it must address public fears with information. Punitive responses always fail and lead to calls for more of the same. Our young people are too vulnerable and too valuable to use them as a balm for unrelated public anxiety.

Our primary recommendation is that:

• a major public education strategy must be designed and implemented on the reality of youth crime and corrections, especially compared to the United States, and
• continuing research into public attitudes be conducted.

The goals of the education strategy and public attitude research would be to ensure that:

• public attitudes are based on the true facts, and
• legislators do not misjudge the public demand for punishment.