Effectiveness of juvenile justice Essay Example

statistics pertaining to New South Wales. When studying the sentencing of young offenders, the Australian Law Reform Commission received a remark suggesting a prevailing belief in an impending "juvenile crime wave" that poses a threat to society.

Despite common belief, there is a widespread perception that juveniles are accountable for a larger quantity of serious personal and property crimes. Additionally, it is believed that the implementation of new laws and programs has led to an escalation in juvenile crime, suggesting that society is becoming more tolerant towards delinquents. However, advocates argue that enforcing stricter institutions and more severe punishments would effectively reduce juvenile offenses. In comparison, media narratives often portray juveniles differently than society as a whole perceives them.

Statistical data and information easily demonstrate the potential inaccuracy of portraying juveniles. Car theft, a common crime committed by juveniles, has seen an increasing trend since 2000. The earliest available data from November 2003 records the lowest number of stolen vehicles at 7618, dating back to 1995.

Despite popular images, in 2002 - 03, only 29% of motor vehicle larceny wrongdoers were juveniles, which is actually lower than the data collected in 1995 - 96 when juveniles accounted for 36% of motor vehicle larceny wrongdoers. This is not the only example that showcases the inaccuracy of both the media and society's portrayal of juvenile offense. The rate of juvenile offending is decreasing, from 4092 per 100.

Between 1995-96 and 2002-03, the number of juveniles grew from 000 to 3130, while the offense rate decreased by 20% since 1995. The female offense rate experienced a slight increase until 2000-01 before declining by 28% in 2003.

The main categories of juvenile offenses consist

of different types of theft, including pick-pocketing, bag-snapping, stealing, and bicycle theft. Furthermore, unlawful entry with intent, assault, and motor vehicle theft are also common.

Between 1995-96 and 2002-03, the rates of all mentioned crimes decreased except for assault. During this time, other larceny experienced a significant decline of 38%. For more in-depth statistical graphs and tabulated data, please see Appendix 1 and 2.

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research provides comprehensive data on criminal cases in the Children's Court. These statistics do not encompass cases resolved through diversionary tactics (which will be examined shortly). In 2002, a total of 8,546 juveniles were charged with criminal offenses in the Children's Court, resulting in convictions for 5,398 individuals. Appendix 3 presents the six most common offenses.

The main legislative acts governing Juvenile Justice in New South Wales, Australia are as follows:
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW): This act sets out the procedures for dealing with juvenile offenders. It was modified by the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Adult Detainees) Act 2002 (NSW), which allows individuals convicted of a serious offense to be transferred to adult correctional facilities once they reach 18 years old.
- Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW): This act establishes the administration and procedures for managing juvenile justice centers, including the supervision of young detainees.
- Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 (NSW): This act outlines the procedures for supervising juvenile offenders placed on community service orders.
- Children’s Court Act 1987 (NSW): This act defines the jurisdiction and laws that apply to the Children's Court.
- Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 (NSW): This act specifically holds parents accountable for their children's past and future

actions.

The Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) sets out the processes for dealing with young offenders who commit specific crimes. These cases are resolved through youth justice conferences, cautions, and warnings instead of being taken to court. The Crimes Amendment (Detention After Arrest) Act 1997 (NSW) amends the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), granting police the power to detain young individuals for a maximum of four hours following their arrest. The Juvenile Offenders Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (NSW) establishes a designated facility called a "juvenile correctional centre" specifically for offenders aged 16 and older, while changes were also made to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).

The Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) were enacted or amended to align with international law principles and uphold Australia's commitment to various international conventions.

Children require special treatment within the criminal justice system due to their ongoing development towards adulthood. This acknowledgement is evident in international law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, and UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. These global guidelines form a foundation for creating a distinct juvenile justice system that works to safeguard children and adolescents. In NSW, this independent system falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

The organization's goal is to help juvenile offenders meet their obligations and live a life free from crime. In New South Wales, there are numerous laws that oversee juvenile justice, with the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) being

particularly significant. This act was put into effect on April 6th, 1998.The purpose of this act is to establish a strategy that provides an alternative approach for addressing offenses committed by children. It involves the use of youth justice conferences, cautions, and warnings. The main goal is to reform how the criminal justice system handles young offenders by redirecting them away from courts and juvenile justice centers towards different intervention methods (refer to appendix six for full objectives of the act and appendix seven for juvenile sentencing as an example of when diversion can take place).

The available options for the Children's Court in NSW, listed from most severe to least severe, are as follows: detention in a juvenile justice center or juvenile correctional facility, suspended detention, community service order, attendance center order, probation (usually up to two years) or other supervised order, fine or compensation and good behavior bond, referral to a youth conferencing strategy, participation in a good behavior bond program to meet specific conditions, dismissal of charges with or without either a reprimand or a conviction recorded. The goals of sentencing, referred to as retribution, are defined as seeking punishment.

Disincentive, rehabilitation, and incapacitation face difficulties when it comes to condemning juveniles. Instead, condemnations aim to fulfill the following goals: Duty, purpose, alibi, damage.

Motivation. The motivating factor of duty is altered when dealing with juvenile offenders. The perception of reduced responsibility due to age must be taken into account by the court. Proportionality; the punishment given should consider the severity of the offense and the responsibility of the offender. Equality; there should be consistency in punishment. Frugality; the sentence imposed should be the least

restrictive option that is suitable. Rehabilitation; the court must consider the possibilities of rehabilitating the offender. In addition, an outline of sentencing options and the goals that must be met when imposing punishment.

The main issue that needs to be addressed is the current usage of these condemning options. Appendix Nine provides a table showing various outcomes from the Children’s Court in 2000. It is important to note the category of "other proven outcomes," which accounts for a total of 15.1% of the results. This category includes outcomes like appreciated force orders.

Compensation and commitments to higher tribunals are provided with caution, leading to the dismissal of a significant class comprising 13.8 percent of tribunal outcomes.

Dismissals are most commonly used for public order offenses and drug offenses in the offense class. What stands out is the frequent utilization of detainment, which is the 6th highest result used 9 times.

8 percent of the clip. Detention Centers: Juvenile Justice Centers and Juvenile Correction Centres In some legal powers there are certain legislative demands when the tribunal is sing condemning a immature individual to a period of institutionalisation. By and large talking. the tribunal must be satisfied that no other condemning option is appropriate. that is. the wrongdoer has non responded to the different preventative and rehabilitation methods available or the wrongdoer has committed a serious chargeable offense and no other condemning option is executable.

It is evident that the purpose of detainment is to serve as a final measure. Detaining young offenders is influenced by various conflicting principles, such as deterrence, punishment, community safety, and rehabilitation. The emphasis given to these principles will shape the overall direction of detention center

policies and greatly influence the nature of the detention experience.

There are several guidance and instruction plans available in Juvenile Justice Centers and Juvenile Correction Centers, such as the Kairong Juvenile Correction Facility and Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre in New South Wales. These centers aim to provide incarcerated wrongdoers, particularly immature ones, with equal opportunities for skills and vocational development. They offer numerous services to ensure that these individuals can reintegrate into society with the same abilities and chances as other young people.

Within the Australian legal system, equity, equality, and justness are considered fundamental principles. These three concepts serve as the foundation for the entire legal system, influencing every decision made, whether they are based on codified laws, common laws, decisions by authorities, or judgments from judges.

When considering the issue of juvenile justice as a present criminal justice issue, it is crucial to take into account equality and fairness.

Equality and justice operate together, despite being separate concepts.

The following is an evaluation of juvenile justice concerning the specific issues outlined in this study thus far. These specific aspects include the relevant regulatory legislation and diversionary strategies of juvenile justice.

The Children's Court and Detention Centers are central and crucial parts of our judicial system. There is a strong belief that equality before the law is the most fundamental and significant aspect. Equality before the law implies that regardless of their personal circumstances, all individuals who appear in court should be treated impartially, which is known as formal equality before the law. Additionally, equality implies that everyone should receive equal treatment to achieve fairness.

When it comes to legal procedures, considering extenuating circumstances is crucial for ensuring equal outcomes.

This holds especially true for the laws governing juvenile justice which consider the age at which individuals are held responsible for criminal actions. These laws acknowledge that minors have a lesser degree of responsibility. By adopting this approach, formal equality can be established for young offenders.

As juveniles are minors, they are considered to have reduced criminal responsibility. However, despite the formal equality guaranteed by legislation regulating juvenile justice, this does not occur in practice at the hands of law enforcement officials, such as police officers. It is evident that minority racial groups can face discrimination at the law enforcement level.

That is, because of the constabulary, during the docudrama "Penetration: Juvenile Justice" produced by SBS Australia and screened on March 3rd, 2000, which was documented by a newsman.

Vivan Ultman discusses the involvement of cultural minorities in the juvenile justice system, highlighting several issues. Criminologist Chris Cueen, from New South Wales, argues that it is necessary for minority groups to be adequately represented in Juvenile Justice Centers. Cueen asserts that the most marginalized children in society are the ones who often end up incarcerated, which reflects a combination of unemployment and ethnicity. The statement comes from a former magistrate of the Children's Court in NSW.

Rod Blackmore claims that cultural minority juveniles are not being treated more harshly by the tribunals or the system. He argues that their treatment is instead a gatekeeping tactic, whether they have been initially diverted by the police or quickly charged and arrested.

The lack of recreational options provided by the police, who fail to utilize diversionary tactics authorized by the Young Offenders Act 1997 ( NSW ), such as on-the-spot warnings or more

severe formal cautions, has led to a noticeable imbalance, disproportionately affecting cultural minorities.

Indigenous Australians are disproportionately represented in juvenile correction facilities, as shown in the statistical data provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Shown in Appendix Ten is the overrepresentation of indigenous Australians in the constabulary force. However, this issue can be addressed by the constabulary force taking proactive measures to ensure equality in treatment of indigenous Australians. One approach could be reducing over patrolling in areas with high indigenous population, which can help alleviate tensions between indigenous juveniles and the police.

In an article from The Age, Liz Gooch highlights the increasing rates of imprisonment among Aboriginal individuals. According to the article, Indigenous juveniles are 20 times more likely to be detained compared to other Australians.

This unequal intervention could have a significant impact on their future, possibly leading to further beliefs later in life. However, it is important to consider the inequality experienced by cultural minorities within the community before they enter the Juvenile Justice System.

The media often portrays groups of indigenous Australians and those from non-English speaking backgrounds in New South Wales as being disadvantaged and stereotyped as "offenders". The accuracy of this portrayal is debatable, but it significantly impacts the factors that influence individuals within these minority groups.

Perpetrating offenses can lead to negative public image, which can result in the formation of groups like indigenous Australians to commit crimes. However, efforts have been made to ensure equal treatment for all juvenile offenders in the Children's Court. All juveniles have access to the Legal Aid Youth Hotline.

The Juvenile Justice System offers free advice to juveniles at all stages. Additionally, during diversionary strategies

like cautions and Youth Conferencing, young offenders can choose individuals to be present, such as translators, to ensure equal opportunities. Moreover, the system promotes equality of opportunity by providing various educational and vocational training programs during periods of confinement.

This guarantees that juveniles serving their confinement sentence are on an equal or nearly equal footing with other individuals, as if they had not gone through the process. There is also an indirect discrimination created by the concept of equality under the law. An Australian Law Reform Commission and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission joint report also addresses this issue.

"Seen and Heard: Precedence for Children in the legal Process”13 reported several issues regarding young people. One significant problem identified was their interaction with the police. Additionally, it highlighted inadequacy of courtroom facilities and insufficient training for law enforcement personnel when dealing with young individuals. Despite the report being dated, improvement remains an ongoing process.

The text discusses the concept of fairness in the Juvenile Justice system, specifically in relation to the provision of legal advice to detained juveniles. It acknowledges that achieving full fairness in this context may be difficult.

In the past, when a young person requested to speak to an attorney, the police would occasionally hand them a telephone book and instruct them to find one themselves, often outside of business hours.

In the case of R V Clifford Cortez14, it was determined that the detention manager must inform the child about the free Legal Aid Youth Hotline and help them access it, as this was not just practice. Justice Dowd set a precedent in this case by stating that young people aged 17 rarely have access

to a counselor or a contact person.

Proposing that they could contact their designer or dietetic advisory is just as absurd as suggesting this. The reason for the hotline's existence is to ensure that young individuals understand it is free, accessible, and that they can seek advice directly from there.

Failure to provide legal advice to the young person is not only a violation of the Act and ordinance, but more importantly, it is a breach of their equitable right. It is crucial to ensure the provision of legal advice in order to maintain fairness throughout the juvenile justice process.

Furthermore, in the case of R v Phung and Hunyh15, the significance of having the right support person was highlighted. In this particular case, a 17-year-old named Johnny Phung was believed to have committed an armed robbery and fatal shooting. He was apprehended by the police and underwent two interviews while in custody. These interviews emphasized the importance of having the appropriate support person present.

Phung made statements regarding his involvement in the offenses. He was not provided with a suitable support person during his interviews. The support person for the initial interview with Detective Senior Constable Quigg was Phung's 21-year-old cousin, who did not have strong English skills and was also intimidated by the police. The second support person was a Salvation Army Officer who was unfamiliar to Phung and did not have any opportunity to speak to him privately.

When Phung went to court, Justice Wood refused to acknowledge the interview transcripts. He believed that the police had acted improperly by not providing a suitable support person for Phung. Justice Wood said, "I would disregard the evidence."

Given my

belief that the obvious lack of compliance from the parties involved in adhering to government regulations creates an injustice, this outweighs any potential probative value that may have been held by the admissible evidence. It is evident that efforts to promote fairness in the juvenile justice system are being made.

During constabulary detention, it is crucial to have an appropriate support individual present. The Children's Court Sentencing Process can lead to unfairness, with the primary focus being on rehabilitating juveniles. A case in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, R 5 GDP16, exemplified this. P, a 15-year-old boy, was involved.

Two friends caused significant damage to an auto pace and building company in the western suburbs of Sydney, resulting in over $1.5 million worth of harm.

P was arrested by the constabulary and made admittances in two records of the interview. Rather than having P's charge determined in the children's tribunal, the tribunal decided to commit P to stand trial in the District Court. P pleaded guilty and received a sentence of 12 months' detainment. However, a successful appeal was made in the Court of Criminal Appeal, resulting in a reduction of the sentence to 12 months' probation.

In her opinion, Justice Matthews outlined several points regarding the criteria for sentencing juvenile offenders. She pointed out that P was a first-time offender and had undergone a positive evaluation by the court, school, and psychiatrists. Furthermore, she emphasized that P had shown significant rehabilitation through refraining from further offenses and reintegrating into the educational system.

Justice Matthews determined that the initial judge who imposed the supervisory sentence had made two mistakes. While the sentence of 12 months' detention was

a suitable punishment, it did not consider the offender's age or potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the condemning judge neglected to differentiate P's minor role in the crimes.

Despite having the same sentence as one co-offender, he had played a lesser role. Other cases, such as R V Wilkie17, R V Vitros18, and R V ALH19, have also highlighted the significance of rehabilitation in maintaining the importance of justice. It is evident that, in order to achieve a fair outcome for each individual, mitigating circumstances and other specific factors surrounding the case must be considered.

Instances of unfairness during procedure due to insufficient compliance with various specifications outlined in legislative acts such as the Children ( Criminal Proceedings ) Act 1987 ( NSW ) and the Children’s Court Act 1987 ( NSW ) are numerous. Criminal law is intended to rectify the wrongdoing committed by individuals in the community, on behalf of the state.

The Young person Conferences diversionary strategy raises concerns about achieving justice for the individual affected by the offense within the realm of public jurisprudence where the state prosecution acts on behalf of society to provide the most suitable punishment for those who wrong society.

And so, society seeks fairness. In 2003, 1250 Youth Justice Conferences were implemented as alternatives to the Children's Court. These conferences allow individuals to experience shame in the presence of their peers and require them to show remorse in front of these peers. This method is considered to bring justice to young offenders in a non-confrontational manner and ultimately produces a feasible action plan.

There is a consensus between the wrongdoer and the victim regarding the agreed upon resolution. However, there is still

a question about whether this truly represents justice. Conferences are often seen as a progressive approach to juvenile justice as they acknowledge the rights of young offenders.

The victims, as well as their households and community, have to decide how to deal with the harm caused by the offender's actions. Youth justice conferences serve as a platform to discuss and tackle the numerous complicated issues related to youth offending. A documentary named "Joe's Conference: what happens at a young person justness conference" explores this topic.

Produced in 2000 by the Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, this publication portrays the process of youth justice conferences through the story of Joe. Joe, a young offender, stole a car, proceeded to destroy it, and was subsequently apprehended by the police and sent to a youth justice conference.

At the conclusion of the docudrama, Joe has agreed to participate in a program that includes community service and vocational training at a certified mechanic's workshop. The victim, who has lost his car, will not receive any compensation. This agreement was reached by both the wrongdoer and the victim.

Despite the belief that justness may not have been achieved in the eyes of many, there is a contrasting view.

The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in New South Wales (NSW) published an article on January 3, 2007 titled "Re-offending by immature people cautioned or conferenced". According to the article, juveniles who go through a caution or a youth justice conference have a lower likelihood of re-offending compared to those who are sent to the Children's Court. These findings are based on statistics provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The article argues that 42% of individuals who

were cautioned and 58% of those who participated in a young person justice conference were found guilty of another offense in the Children's Court during a five-year follow-up period. Additionally, only a small percentage of those cautioned (5.2%) or conferenced (10.8%) committed a serious enough offense to warrant a custodial sentence within five years. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of Youth Conferencing in reducing re-offending rates.

Furthermore, achieving justice is not limited to this. It also involves individuals confronting the wrongdoer and expressing their emotions, as seen in Jock Cheetham's article "Justice in the cell with no bars".

Written by Jock Cheetham, this text was published in The Sydney Morning Herald on October 29, 2004.

The Youth Conference notes that only the convener is identified. The purpose of the Youth Justice Conference was to develop a successful program for the wrongdoer, referred to as 'Dave', who committed larceny offenses.

Hooliganism and driving under the influence of intoxicants are addressed in this article, which explores how Youth Justice Conferences promote justice. It highlights the feelings of the victims following the Conference, during which both the victims and Dave reached an agreement. According to the agreement, Dave was required to pay $500 and complete 20 hours of community work at a Police and Citizens Youth Club.

One of the victims, known as "Jacqueline," states that she is still somewhat angry at the person responsible. Although they feel relieved that the incident is in the past, it does not completely erase what happened.

Even though you may feel skeptical about the Youth Justice Conferences, it is evident that they serve the purpose of achieving justice for both victims and promoting rehabilitation for

wrongdoers. In addition, they achieve justice by diverting cases away from the Children's Court.

There is advancement in achieving greater resource efficiency and providing access for all immature wrongdoers, which enhances the justice system. However, it is believed that Juvenile Justice Centers and other correctional detention facilities are not effectively helping in attaining justice.

According to Chris Cureen, a criminologist, imprisonment is effective in temporarily removing young individuals from society and reducing their likelihood of committing crimes while incarcerated. However, it does not serve as a deterrent for other children or prevent former inmates from reoffending once released.

According to criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland, Juvenile Justice Centers are believed to train young offenders in becoming more skilled criminals upon their release. This theory is known as differential association. Society finds it convenient and satisfying to incarcerate juvenile wrongdoers; however, this may not necessarily lead to achieving justice.

Imprisoning juvenile offenders not only fails to rehabilitate them but also encourages them to continue engaging in criminal behavior. However, the question still remains as to why correctional facilities provide opportunities for children to acquire skills that can lead to a better life after their release. - Chris Cueen.

Provinces. It is ironic that a place like Kariong, which is the highest security juvenile justice center in NSW, has the best employment opportunities. This means that individuals are locked up in a maximum security environment and only at the very end are they provided with skills or education that should have been given to them from the beginning of their time in the center. Juvenile Justice Centers offer educational programs to rehabilitate young offenders, but not enough.

The impact of correctional facilities on individuals

varies, as it can either be beneficial or harmful. Additionally, the laws governing Juvenile Justice uphold international human rights standards, including the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child (CROC). These statutes also ensure non-discrimination (article 4) in juvenile justice systems.

The text emphasizes the importance of children's rights involving Article 3 (best interests of the child), Article 6 (survival and development), and Article 12 (participation in decision-making).

Justice is ensured for young offenders through legislation that protects their human rights as stated in international conventions. Furthermore, it is considered a crime to publicize the name or identifying information of a young person appearing before or convicted by the children's court. This approach promotes justice by preventing future stigmatization of the young offender and providing ample opportunities for personal growth and development.

Overall, the decision regarding juvenile justice law in the previous section promotes fairness, equality, and justice. The common law purpose