Ok interestingly enough we discussed this exact topic in one of the Criminology classes for my major. Youth violence is actually rather sensationalized, and often the government's response to youth violence is understated. Here's the actual facts:
-Youth violence is grossly over-reported, 94% of cases displayed by the media are of violence, when in fact youth crime as a whole is 12% of total crime in Canada. Only 20% of that 12% is actually violent. 80% of youth crime is non-violent (50% is property crime, 30% is drug-related/fraud/etc)
-Of all youth violent crime 71% of it is Simple Assault, which would be pushing, punching, etc. Essentially anything without a weapon and that doesn't cause bodily harm
-The *vast* majority of the victims of youth violence are other youths
-Canada actually has one of the most punitive youth justice systems. 25% of sentences given to youths are non-custodial (i.e. no confinement), as opposed to 53% in the US, 57% in the UK and 61% in New Zealand
-In Canada, a youth is 4 times more likely to receive a custodial sentence as an adult committing the same offence
-In Canada, youths are more likely to be sentenced to a longer sentence than an adult committing the same offence
-Boot camps haven't actually been proven to work, as they lack counseling programs. Military discipline is good, but with youth crime, the roots of the crime itself need to be tackled.
-Youth crime has a few sources per. some criminological theories. The Labelling theory basically states that once a youth is given the label of a criminal (i.e. by the courts or police) he/she will be given the master status of a criminal, and therefore follow that label.
-Another major source is due to Illegitimate Opportunity and the Middle Class Measuring rod as well as Strain Theories. These essentially state that underpriveledges youths are under social strain to complete legitimate goals, but do not have the means to do so, hence resorting to crime. They are also constantly compared to the 'Measuring Rod' of middle class values which they can not also legitimately achieve.
-Differential Association basically states that criminal behaviour is learned through our social associations with others (i.e. peer groups).
Drift and Neutralization states that criminal behaviour is learned through associations, but also through these associations we learn means to neutralize the wrong aspect of the crime (i.e. 'It's not wrong, my buddies were doing it')
-Social Bond is an excellent way of explaining youth crime. It essentially states that everyone has a differing strength of bond to society. Family, peer groups, jobs, and a respect for the legitimacy of the law all constitute aspects of the bond. Someone with a stronger bond is less likely to commit a crime, while someone with a weaker bond is more likely to commit a crime. This can explain some youth crime especially in the sense of youths with poor community or family attachments.
-Off of the theoretical stuff, Young Offenders doesn't exist anymore, we now use the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which mends some of YO's holes. Basically is aims more at correcting those that can be corrected and punishing those that show no respect for society. Violent and repeat offenders are subjected to mandatory custodial sentences as well as their names being released to the public, amongst other things. I'd go into depth, but I think I've rambled on for long enough.