Young Offenders Act

[RandyAndy2]

Yesterday there was an Amber Alert in Toronto about the abduction of a 10 month old by a 14 year old.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/05/toronto-missing-baby.html

It's understandable that under the Young Offenders' Act that the 14 year old can't be identified after the fact, and fortunately everything ended out OK. What bothers me is that during the Amber Alert the 14 year old could not be identified, even if it meant that the chance of finding the 10 month old would be increased. It seems to me that during an Amber Alert that the health and safety of the abducted child should trump the non-identification provision of the YOA, where the two are in conflict.

Does this make sense? What do you think?

 

[Never Compromised]

The YOA is there to ensure that someone does not throw away 60 years of being a good citizen for one stupid act. For a B&E or some horseplay that goes too far, that means the act probably does what is intended. But in the case of a "severe" crime, a judge has the ability to lift the blackout order or to have the offender tried as an adult, which is a reasonable compromise.