The fundamental paradigm shift from the "Youth Offenders Act" to the "Youth Criminal Justice Act" involves the view that deviant youth are now viewed as offenders responsible for their actions. In a similar comparison to that of adults, the youth are encouraged to obtain legal counsel. The youth justice court or review board is required as a legal implication to advise the young person of their right to counsel. The following are some typical situations that warrant such advice: at a hearing for the youth when determining to detain or release the individual, at a youth's trial, and in situations where the custody of the youth is in question such as conditional supervision and decision reviews. The youth justice court or review board is more specifically required to provide a reasonable opportunity to obtain such counsel and this act is viewed as a mandated judicial measure. A specific difference in comparison to adult courts is the fact that it prohibits criminal proceedings against a youth without the consent of the Attorney General. In terms of adult proceedings, it is possible for members of the public to commence proceedings without the authorization of police and the Crown Attorney; however, that is not the case with youth. While comparing the "Youth Offenders Act" to the "Youth Criminal Justice Act", the former focuses more on a youth's choice to retain counsel and the role of lawyers in the criminal justice system. In terms of the JDA, more focus was placed on a youth being viewed as a misguided individual who required guidance from the courts.