La détermination de la peine dans le système de justice des mineurs : comprendre les dilemmes éthiques vécus par les acteurs judiciaires et leur résolution

For a long time, sentencing research has been conducted in an attempt to better understand penal practices within the juvenile justice system. However, few studies have focused specifically on more complex cases in which juvenile justice practitioners find it more difficult to reach a decision. This thesis examines such cases. It aims to show that when juvenile offenders are concerned, sentencing can turn into a real ethical dilemma to be resolved. For this purpose, semi-structured interviews were carried out with a sample of 31 juvenile justice practitioners in Quebec, during which they were invited to discuss a situation in which they had personally been faced with an ethical dilemma in a given case, at the sentencing stage. Thematic analysis of the interviews was then performed. Thesis findings are presented within the framework of three empirical articles. The first one explores the nature of the ethical dilemmas experienced and the context in which they emerge. Three situations leading to the formation of such dilemmas are identified. Although they each have their own specificities, they all have in common the fact of involving a case in which the seriousness of the offence committed calls for a different sentence (more or less severe) than what the situation and the juvenile offender's needs for intervention would suggest. Overall, the dilemma most frequently discussed arises from a conflict between imposing a fair sentence and imposing a sentence that is useful to the juvenile offender (that is to say, in keeping with his/her true needs in terms of rehabilitation), and it often opposes a custodial sentence and a sentence served in the community. The second article examines the decision-making process of juvenile justice practitioners, and more specifically their reasoning. Results show that they have different ways of resolving their ethical dilemmas. Some of them choose to favour the sentence which, in their eyes, best addresses the situation and meets the juvenile offender's needs for intervention (corrective orientation). Others decide to favour the sentence that best reflects the seriousness of the offence committed (punitive orientation). Finally, some reach a compromise. Results also show that the criteria used by juvenile justice practitioners to justify their decision and the way in which they interpret said criteria vary greatly depending on the penal orientation favoured (corrective, punitive or compromise). Lastly, the third article of the thesis examines the importance given by juvenile justice practitioners to the opinion of other practitioners (colleagues, superiors, other stakeholders) when resolving their ethical dilemma, and the structuring effect of these opinions. Results suggest that the resolution of ethical dilemmas is not a strictly individual endeavor; other practitioners are very often consulted. Yet, their opinion does not systematically have a structuring effect. In some cases, it is rather a source of validation which enables juvenile justice practitioners to feel good about their own decision.

Keyphrases: Adolescents contrevenants, LSJPA, Ethical dilemma, Sentencing, Sentencing purposes, Decision-making, Juvenile justice practitioners, Juvenile offenders, Youth justice, Youth Criminal Justice Act