Young Offenders Essay Notes

Assess the effectiveness of the criminal justice system when dealing with young offenders?

Introduction: The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. While a large proportion of crime is perpetuated by juveniles, they also have the highest propensity to for rehabilitation and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system. The effectiveness of dealing with young offenders will be assessed on various fronts, firstly the effectiveness of the age of criminal responsibility and gradual imposition of responsibility onto juveniles. Secondly, the effectiveness of how young offenders are treated differently in the criminal justice system. Thirdly, the current approach to youth criminality will be examined to determine whether it provides the best outcome for the offender and society.

Trends of young offenders in the criminal justice system

• Crime is committed disproportionately by young people, persons between the age of 15-19 are more likely to be processed  by police for the commission of a crime that any other population group
• Offender rates have been consistently highest among persons aged 15 to 19 years
• Rates of offending usually peak in late adolescence and decline in early adulthood
• A study done of Livingstone, Queensland of a cohort of juveniles born in Queensland in 1983/84 identified three primary juvenile offending trajectories
• The most problematic of these were chronic offenders, who compromised of 11 percent of the cohort, but were responsible for 33% of the offending
• Types of offences  perpetrated by juveniles – As a whole juveniles are more frequently apprehended by police in relation to property offences (1/3 in NSW), rather than offences against the person

Punishment of Juvenile Offenders

• Youth Offenders are generally trialed in the Children’s Court, except for serious indictable offences such as murder
• Sentencing Options under the Children’s (Criminal proceedings) Act 1987 include:
  • Dismissal, Adjournment, Good behavior bonds
  • Youth justice conference
  • Probation
  • Suspended/ Control order (maximum two years)
  • Reform in the juvenile justice system – Young Offenders Act 1997 – Three
    • Warnings – Informal
    • Cautions – Formal and recorded
    • Youth Justice Conferences
    • Effective: because it encourages rehabilitation over punitive measures
    • Uses diversionary measures to find solutions ot youth offending
    • However not used for a wide enough range of offences therefore excluding some offenders from the benefits of conferencing
    • May work in more serious offences as the young offender is obliged to consider the consequences of his or her actions

Custodial sentences

• Custodial sentences have been shown to not decrease recidivism rates
• Youths offenders high propensity of rehabilitation rate should be used and money spent on rehabilitation is small compared to paying for a chronic offender to live in jail the rest of their life
• The use of detention should be one of last resort
• The proportion of unsentenced juveniles in detention has increased steadily in recent years, due to changes in bail legislation, which increases the number of juveniles on remand and the length of time juveniles spend in custody. This has been caused by:
  • High number of bail conditions being placed on juveniles than adults and juveniles being more robustly monitored by police while on bail
  • Lack of appropriate accommodation options due to homeless individuals
  • Case: AE v The Queen (2010) – Appeal of a three year non-parole sentence, with a further 2 years, for a stabbing the defendant committed when he was 15. This is a steep punishment for a young offender, however the rehabilitation must take a paramount role alongside punitive measures to make the punishment effective
  • Case: SBF v R (2009) – Driving offence which resulted in a car hitting a power pole, resulting in the deaths of a 16 and 17 year old, offender was 17 years old at the time of the offence – judge said that a person of almost 18 years of age can’t be treated hugely differently to one 18 years old – seven years and 10 months sentence

Assess the effectiveness of the age of criminal responsibility

• The gradual imposition of criminal responsibility (doli incapax) – Under 10, 10-13, 14-17
• Usefulness of imposing criminal sanctions
  • Rehabilitation
  • Immature appreciation of the consequences and gravity of their misbehavior
  • Doli Incapax
    • Protects children under 14 years old, through conclusive presumption and a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax
    • Does not take into account mental disabilities, which is where a large proportion of the juvenile population is in juvenile detention for

Protection of Children

Under s 13 of Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 any information or statement a child or young person gives to police will be inadmissible as evidence against that person unless:

• There is a responsible adult other than the police member present, such as a parent, youth worker, guardian or lawyer

This is important because police must ensure there is a responsible adult present any time a person under 18 years old is questioned. If not the police will be unable to use any information received as evidence.

Arrest and Interrogation protections

Conclusion

• The criminal justice system is partially effective
• The adjustments to the bail act, reduces it effectiveness since many juveniles are held on remand, when only a small percent get custodial sentences
• Indigenous offending needs to be reexamined due to the disproportiate representation in juvenile detention centers
• The juvenile justice system is effective at protecting the rights of juveniles, between under 10 and 14 with doli incapax
• Their needs to be more money put towards rehabilitation instead of custodial sentencing to decrease offending