Police Discretion and Diversionary Measures PDF

The most important legal factors influencing police discretion are offence seriousness and prior record of the offender. Minor offences offer more latitude for police discretion. Police contact in itself also increases the chances of future arrest. Race, class, gender, age, demeanour, homelessness,...

The most important legal factors influencing police discretion are offence seriousness and prior record of the offender. Minor offences offer more latitude for police discretion. Police contact in itself also increases the chances of future arrest. Race, class, gender, age, demeanour, homelessness, and complainant preference have all been identified as significant factors affecting police decision-making Racial profiling and carding is being challenged in Ontario courts as a human rights issue. Other important extralegal factors include family, community, neighbourhood, and the structure and organization of police departments. The extent to which the personal views and beliefs of individual police officers affect their decisions depends to a great extent on the organization of their departments. Extrajudicial measures as expressed in the YCJA are based on the philosophy that diversion is the most appropriate and effective way to address non-violent youth crime. The YCJA requires that, in every case, an extrajudicial sanction should be proportionate to the offence and provide an effective, timely opportunity for young offenders to acknowledge and repair the harm their behaviour has caused for victims and communities. Bill C-10 requires police officers to keep records of extrajudicial measures. Diversionary measures programs are usually restricted to first-time offenders charged with minor offences. Some provinces are lobbying to follow Quebec’s lead in including more serious offences. Diversionary measures programming can be categorized as reconciliation/ mediation, retributive/restitutive, rehabilitative/educational, or restorative interventions. In most provinces, police make referrals for diversionary measures. Only Ontario uses a post-charge system, in which all youth are required to go to court before entering diversionary programs. Most provinces use both a pre- and post-charge referral system. In some provinces, Youth Justice Committees made up of citizens participate in these decision-making processes. Province by province, anywhere from 16 to 36 percent of apprehended youth have been referred to diversionary measures; success rates range from 80 to 98 percent. Critics charge that diversionary measures are a net-widening mechanism because programs are largely restricted to minor offences by youth with no prior record and because, in most provinces, failure to comply may result in court processing and custody s Critics charge that diversionary measures are a net-widening mechanism because programs are largely restricted to minor offences by youth with no prior record and because, in most provinces, failure to comply may result in court processing and custody sentences. Police release conditions contribute considerably to pushing youth further into the justice system. Who should control or administer diversionary measures and the extent to which governments are willing to adequately fund programs are problematic issues. Important questions have been raised about the lack of accountability for referral decisions and the resulting potential for lack of consistency and unfair decisions. Some argue that to be truly diversionary, programs should be community-based and administered independently of the justice system