Meaning of Accountability Under Section 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act
Abstract
This study examined judicial decisions, post the 2012 amendments, to determine what drives the accountability analysis under section 72(1)(b). I asked if accountability was equated to retribution as reasoned by the Ontario Court of Appeal, in R v AO? Additionally, has the introduction of specific deterrence and denunciation, under section 38(2)(f) had an effect on the accountability analysis? The qualitative results revealed three sets of cases. In each set weight was given to retribution in the accountability analysis. In some cases, retribution was given greater weight to the rehabilitative needs of the young person and in other cases the rehabilitative needs were given equal to or greater weight to retribution. In the first and second group of cases, the courts did not make explicit reference to specific deterrence and denunciation whereas in the third group the addition of specific deterrence and denunciation has had an effect on the accountability inquiry.