Effectiveness of juvenile justice Essay Example
Effectiveness of juvenile justice Essay Example

Effectiveness of juvenile justice Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 20 (5434 words)
  • Published: September 3, 2017
  • Type: Research Paper
View Entire Sample
Text preview

There is no uncertainty that vernal offending has occurred throughout recorded history. Young person wrongdoers are grouped in an single division of the condemnable justness system. known as the Juvenile Justice System. Juvenile Justice is an extended term. embracing legion facets of the condemnable justness system. from criminology. to offense bar schemes. penalty and rehabilitation. Harmonizing to the Children ( Criminal Proceedings ) Act 1987 ( NSW ) . juvenile justness refers to the system of condemnable jurisprudence which deals with wrongdoers between the ages of 10 and 18. This group can so be subcategorised into offenses committed by kids ( aged ten to fifteen ) and immature people ( aged 16 to eighteen ) . Both of these subcategories of persons in the juvenile justness system are said to keep condemnable duty. But those topi


cs under the age of 10. harmonizing to the Children ( Criminal Proceedings ) Act 1987 ( NSW ) . keep no condemnable duty. due to the common jurisprudence operation of doli incapx1.

The subsequent study will sketch a assortment of aspects of Juvenile Justice as a present condemnable justness issue within Australia. with an accent on diversionary strategies. the Children’s Court and Detention Centers ( juvenile justness centres and juvenile rectification centres ) . Furthermore. the issue will be considered within the legal power of New South Wales. The ground for such a legal power limitation to see the issue merely within New South Wales is because Juvenile Justice Law differs in each province and district due to it being portion of the residuary powers of the province. granted under the rule of the division of power – which i

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

in full operation within Australia. Predating the presentation of the issue. an extended appraisal of the issue of Juvenile Justice in relation to justness. equality and equity will be made. pulling upon assorted instance stuff. statute law and media beginnings. to pull an accurate decision on the effectivity of the legal system in covering with the affairs that surround Juvenile Justice.

Interrupting the Myths: the world ( Facts and Figures ) of Juvenile Justice in New South Wales The usual image painted of juvenile offense is competently drawn in the undermentioned remark made to the Australian Law Reform Commission when it was analyzing the sentencing of immature wrongdoers: “Notions of a ‘juvenile offense wave’ about to steep the community have broad popular currency. It seems to be normally believed that juveniles commit a disproportionately big figure of serious personal and belongings offenses. or that new statute law and plans lead to an addition in juvenile offense. or that society is acquiring soft on its delinquents. and that tougher establishments and harsher punishments would assist control juvenile offense. ”2

In contrast to the image created by many media narratives and therefore society’s general position on juveniles. it can easy be shown how inaccurate the portraiture may be. when pulling upon statistical grounds and informations. One of the offenses most associated with juveniles is centrifugal vehicle larceny. Motor vehicle larceny has been worsening since 2000. with 7618 vehicles stolen in November 2003 being the lowest figure recorded since figures were foremost collected in 1995. Further. despite poplar images. in 2002 – 03 merely 29 per cent of motor vehicle larceny wrongdoers were juveniles and this rate was lower than

informations collected in 1995 – 96. when 36 per centum of motor vehicle larceny wrongdoers were juveniles.

This is non the lone illustration which exposes the inaccuracy of both the media and society’s illustration of juvenile offense. The rate of juvenile offending is diminishing. from 4092 per 100. 000 juveniles in 1995 – 96 to 3130 in 2002–03. The rate of offense dropped 20 per cent since 1995. while the female rate increased somewhat to 2000-01. and so dropped 28 per cent by 2003. The most common juvenile offenses are other larceny ( this class includes offenses such as choice pocketing. bag snaping. stealing and bicycle larceny ) . improper entry with purpose. assault. and motor vehicle larceny. Ratess for all of these. except assault. declined between 1995-96 and 2002-03 and the rate for other larceny decreased by 38 per cent in this period. 3 See Appendix 1 and 2 for full statistical graphs and tabulated grounds.

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research publishes extended figures for condemnable instances in the Children’s Court. These figures do non include instances cover with by diversionary strategies ( which will discussed shortly ) . In 2002. the Children’s Court had 8546 juveniles appear before it on condemnable charges. and instances were proven against 5398 of them. The six most common offenses are pictured in Appendix 3. 4 and 5.

New South Wales Juvenile Justice Regulatory Legislation
The chief legislative acts modulating the operation of Juvenile Justice in Australia are: Children ( Criminal Proceedings ) Act 1987 ( NSW ) : This act sets out tribunal processs for seeking kids. It was amended by the Children ( Criminal Proceedings ) Amendment

( Adult Detainees ) Act 2002 ( NSW ) to hold people convicted of an chargeable offense transferred to adult rectification installations upon turning 18. Children ( Detention Centres ) Act 1987 ( NSW ) : This act sets out the manner in which juvenile justness Centres are administered and processes embracing the supervising of juvenile detainees Children ( Community Service Orders ) Act 1987 ( NSW ) : This out lineations supervisory procedures of juvenile wrongdoers placed on community service orders Children’s Court Act 1987 ( NSW ) : Sets out the fundamental law and legal power of the Children’s Court Children ( Protection and Parental Responsibility ) Act 1997 ( NSW ) : This act explicitly has made parents responsible for the past and future actions of their kids.

It has besides granted constabulary to hold powers to take immature people from public topographic points in local authorities ‘operational’ countries Young Offenders Act 1997 ( NSW ) : An Act to set up processs for covering with kids who commit certain offenses through the usage of young person justness conferences. cautiousnesss and warnings alternatively of tribunal proceedings ; and for other intents 4. Crimes Amendment ( Detention After Arrest ) Act 1997 ( NSW ) : amends the Crimes Act 1900 ( NSW ) to give constabulary powers to confine immature people after apprehension for up to four hours Juvenile Offenders Legislation Amendment Act 2004 ( NSW ) : This act established a new signifier of prison ( ‘juvenile correctional centre’ ) for immature people 16 old ages and older. Amendments were made to the Children ( Criminal Proceedings ) Act 1987 ( NSW

) . Children ( Detention Centres ) act 1987 ( NSW ) and the Crimes ( Administration of Sentences ) Act 1999 ( NSW ) .

The statues refering juvenile justness have been created harmonizing to international jurisprudence rules. or amended. to sign assorted international conventions of which Australia is a party. Children are recognised internationally as to be treated otherwise from grownups in the condemnable justness system. admiting that kids progress through a figure of developmental phases as portion of the procedure of going grownups. Such international jurisprudence which recognises the demand to handle juveniles otherwise comprise of 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 UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty A separate juvenile justness system provides precautions to protect kids and immature people. based on international regulations for the disposal of juvenile justness. In NSW this separate juvenile justness system is administered by the Department of Juvenile Justice. whose mission statement is to “provide services and chances for juvenile wrongdoers to run into their duties and take a life free of farther offending”5.

Diversionary Schemes
It is clear that there are a assortment of legislative acts modulating the operation of juvenile justness in New South Wales. Of peculiar importance is the Young Offenders Act 1997 ( NSW ) . This act came into consequence on April 6th 1998. The objects of this act purpose to “establish a strategy that provides an alternate procedure to tribunal proceedings for covering with kids who commit certain offenses through the usage of

young person justness conferences. cautiousnesss and warnings”6. That is. alter the manner the condemnable justness system trades with immature wrongdoers by deviating immature offender’s off from the tribunal and juvenile justness Centres. to alternate signifiers of intercession ( see appendix six for full objects of the act and appendix seven for the sentencing of juveniles ; an illustration of when recreation can happen ).

The countenances available to the Children’s Court in NSW. in order of diminishing badness. include the undermentioned: detainment in a juvenile justness Centre or juvenile rectification installation suspended detainment community service order. attending Centre order probation ( normally up to two old ages ) or other supervised order mulct or compensation and good behaviour bond mulct or compensation referral to a young person conferencing strategy good behaviour bond project to detect certain conditions dismissal of charges with or without either a rebuke or a strong belief recorded The aims of condemning. defined as. requital. disincentive. rehabilitation and incapacitation have a certain trouble in being met when condemning juveniles. Alternatively. condemning purposes to run into the following aims: Duty ; purpose. alibi. damage. motivation. This extenuating factor of duty is changed when applied to immature wrongdoers. due to the impression of decreased duty because of age Proportionality ; countenance applied by the tribunal needs to take history of the earnestness of the offense and duty of the wrongdoer Equality ; consistence in penalty.

Frugality ; sentence imposed should be the least restrictive that is appropriate Rehabilitation ; the tribunal must take into history the opportunities of rehabilitation for the wrongdoer As good as an lineation of the options available when condemning and the aims

that must be achieved when condemning. the cardinal issue that remains to be examined is the existent usage of these condemning options. Appendix Nine tabulates the assorted tribunal results from the Children’s Court in 2000. Noteworthy is the “other proven outcomes” class. consisting a sum of 15. 1 per cent of the results. This class includes such results as appreciated force orders. compensation and commitments to higher tribunals. The following major class is dismissed with a cautiousness. consisting 13. 8 per cent of the tribunal outcomes. The offense classs where dismissals are most often used are public order offenses and drug offenses. Most noteworthy is the usage of detainment. the 6th most often used result. 9. 8 per cent 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 clear that the usage of detainment is meant to be a “last resort” step.

The detainment of immature wrongdoers is driven by several viing principles. including disincentive. requital. community safety and rehabilitation. The comparative accent placed upon these will determine the overall way of detention-centre policy and have a major impact on the nature of the captivity experience. Many guidance and instruction plans are available in Juvenile Justice Centers and Juvenile Correction Centers. like.

Kairong Juvenile Correction Facility and Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre in New South Wales. It is expected that these immature wrongdoers will be able to go out the system with the same accomplishments and vocational chances as any other young person. as they offer many services to incarcerated wrongdoers. such as three cardinal legal impressions of equity. equality and justness are cardinal when measuring any issue within the Australian legal system. It is said that these three impressions are the bad basiss of the full legal system. with each determination ( whether they be codified jurisprudence or common jurisprudence determinations. determinations by authorities sections or determinations made by jurisprudence hatchet mans ) made within the legal system. hinging on equity. equality and justness. It is cardinal. when measuring the issue of juvenile justness as a current condemnable justness issue. to see equity. equality and justness. independently. even though these three impressions. in operation. are mutualist. The followers is an appraisal of juvenile justness in relation to the particular issues which have been outlined in this study. therefore far. These specific aspects of juvenile justness are its relevant regulative statute law. diversionary strategies. the Children’s Court and Detention Centers. Many persons argue that equality before the jurisprudence is the most cardinal and of import facet of our judicial system. Equality before the jurisprudence means that all people who come before tribunals are treated every bit irrespective of their single state of affairs ; this is formal equality before the jurisprudence. But equality besides suggests that everyone is treated the same and to accomplish equal intervention. extenuating fortunes must be taken into history during the legal procedure. so

that equality of results can be achieved.

The statues modulating juvenile justness all take into history the age of condemnable duty before the jurisprudence. and the fact that being a juvenile does in fact cut down duty before the jurisprudence. Because of this. formal equality for juveniles can be achieved. as all juveniles are considered to hold reduced condemnable duty due to the fact that they are so juveniles.

The imposing of formal equality. which is clearly defined in the assorted legislative acts modulating juvenile justness. does non happen during the operation of the legislative acts by jurisprudence enforcement functionaries. such as constabulary officers. It is apparent that minority racial groups can be discriminated against at the jurisprudence enforcement degree. that is. due to the constabulary. During the docudrama. Penetration: Juvenile Justice. produced by SBS Australia and screened by SBS Australia on March 3rd 2000. which was documented by newsman. Vivan Ultman. raises many issues in respects to the intervention of cultural minorities within the juvenile justness system. Chris Cueen a criminologist in New South Wales believes there is a clear ground for the complete representation of minority groups in Juvenile Justice Centers. saying “the clear reply to that is the most marginalized childs in society are the 1s that end up locked up. it’s a contemplation on unemployment and ethnicity” .

Former magistrate of the Children’s Court in NSW. Rod Blackmore. provinces that “they ( cultural minority juveniles ) aren’t being dealt with more harshly by the tribunals. or by the system. it’s instead a gate maintaining job. whether they’ve been diverted in the first topographic point by the constabulary or they are rapidly being charged and

arrested by the police” . Because of the deficiency of recreation by the constabulary. who do non use diversionary strategies empowered under the Young Offenders Act 1997 ( NSW ) . such as an on the topographic point warning or a more serious formal cautiousness. a clear inequality has resulted – go forthing more cultural minorities. such as autochthonal Australians. in juvenile rectification installations. This overrepresentation. specifically to autochthonal Australians. is clearly illustrated in the statistical informations comprised by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. shown in Appendix Ten.

Yet. this over representation could be avoided if the constabulary force took active stairss to guarantee equality in handling autochthonal Australians. Over patroling in countries of high autochthonal population could be reduced to diminish the tensenesss between autochthonal juveniles and the constabulary. In an article written by Liz Gooch. titled “Aboriginal Prison Rates Increasing” in The Age on the 12th of July 2005. the focal point is on autochthonal juveniles who are. as quoted. “20 times more likely to be detained than other Australians” . Not merely this. such unequal intervention “could affect their hereafter significantly. perchance taking to farther strong beliefs subsequently in life” .

Yet. of importance. is the inequality of cultural minorities within the community prior to come ining the Juvenile Justice System. In New South Wales. groups of autochthonal Australians and those from non-English speech production backgrounds. are portrayed by the media as being disadvantaged and typical “offenders” . Whether or non this true. this has a strong bearing on the factors which lead persons. like these minority groups. to perpetrate offenses. The consequence of negative public image can frequently take to the

justification of groups such as autochthonal Australians. to perpetrate offenses. But. active stairss have been taken to guarantee equality of all juvenile wrongdoers who appear before the Children’s Court. as all juveniles have entree to the Legal Aid Youth Hotline. which gives free advice to juvenile’s at all phases in the juvenile justness system.

Not merely this. during diversionary strategies – such as cautiousnesss and Youth Conferencing – immature wrongdoers may elect persons to be present at such strategies. such as translators. to guarantee equality of chance for all immature wrongdoers. Equality of chance is farther encouraged through the usage of assorted educational and vocational preparation plans during captivity periods. This ensures that when juveniles exist their captivity sentence. they are at equal ( or near equal ) position with other persons. as if they had non been through the procedure.

There is besides indirect favoritism created by the impression of equality before the jurisprudence. An Australian Law Reform Commission and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission fall in study. “Seen and Heard: Precedence for Children in the legal Process”13. identified a figure of job countries with regard to immature people. One of the most of import jobs was their relationship with constabulary. the insufficiency of courtroom installations and unequal preparation for condemnable justness forces in covering with immature people. Although this study was created some clip ago. betterment is a procedure of continuity. which may ne'er be to the full achieved. Fairness refers to the legitimate and proper behavior in the public presentation of an act or responsibility. In respects to Juvenile Justice there are many cases when ‘unfair’ intervention in the eyes of the jurisprudence

may happen. One such illustration of
this is the proviso of legal advice upon detention of a juvenile. In the yesteryear. when a kid asked to talk to a attorney. constabulary had sometimes given the immature offender a telephone book and told them to look one up. frequently outside concern hours. In the instance of R V Clifford Cortez14 the tribunal found that this was non just pattern and that the detention director must inform the kid about the free Legal Aid Youth Hotline and assist them to entree it. In this instance. Justice Dowd created common jurisprudence case in point. when he stated “Young people aged 17 seldom have a canvasser and seldom have a contact figure for one available. It is every bit absurd as proposing they might reach their designer or dietetic advisory.

The whole purpose of the hotline is that immature people would cognize that is free. that it is available. and that they would be able to obtain advice at that place and so. Failure to do it available is a clear breach of the Act and ordinance but. more significantly. in breach of the demand of equity to the immature person” . It is clear that in an attempt to let equity during the juvenile justness procedure. the right to legal advice must be upheld.

Furthermore. in the instance R V Phung and Hunyh15 the importance of the appropriate support individual was enforced. In this instance. 17 twelvemonth old Johnny Phung was suspected of perpetrating an armed robbery and fatal shot. Police arrested him and conducted two interviews while he was in detention. The these interviews. Phung made admittances about his engagement

with the offenses. Phung. was non granted an appropriate support individual during his inquirings. The support individual in the first interview with Detective Senior Constable Quigg was Phung’s 21 twelvemonth old cousin. who did non hold strong English ( and excessively was intimidated by the constabulary ) .

The 2nd support individual was a Salvation Army Officer who was a alien to Phung and did non hold any chance to speak to him in private. When Phung was charged and brought to Court. justness wood refused to acknowledge the interview transcripts. happening that the constabulary had acted improperly by non supplying an appropriate support individual for Phung. Justice Wood stated “I would except the grounds. since I am of the position that the evident failure of those concerned to procure conformity with the government gives rise to an unfairness. and outweighs the probatory value of the admittances obtained. powerful as they might hold been” . It is clear that in the attempts to advance equity in the juvenile justness system. an appropriate support individual must be present during the constabulary detention.

Particular unfairness can ensue in the Children’s Court Sentencing Process. with the most of import consideration in condemning juveniles being rehabilitation. This was illustrated in a instance that went to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. R 5 GDP16. P was a 15 twelvemonth old male child who. with two friends. caused extended harm to a auto pace and building company in the western suburbs of Sydney. to the value of more than $ 1. 5 million. P was arrested by the constabulary and made admittances in two records of the interview. P’s charge

could hold been determined in the children’s tribunal ; nevertheless. the tribunal used its discretion to perpetrate P to stand test in the District Court. P pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 month’s detainment. A successful entreaty was lodged in the Court of Criminal Appeal and the sentence was reduced to 12 months’ probation. Justice Matthews. in her opinion. made a figure of points refering the rules of condemning immature people. She noted that P was a first wrongdoer and had received a favorable tribunal study. school study and psychiatric study.

He had rehabilitated himself to a significant grade since the original offense by non reoffending and by returning to school. Justice Matthews found that the original justice who had imposed the tutelary sentence had been incorrectly on two histories. Although the sentence of 12 months’ detainment was within the scope of appropriate punishments. it did non take into history the young person of the wrongdoer or his or her chance of rehabilitation. Not merely this. the condemning justice had failed to separate the minor function played by P in the offenses. he had the same sentence as one co-offender but had played a well less function. Other instances since GDP have besides been important in continuing the importance of rehabilitation. including R V Wilkie17. R V Vitros18 and R V ALH19. It is clear that in order to bring forth a just result for each person. extenuating fortunes must be taken into history every bit good any other peculiar fortunes which surround the instance.

Examples such as these are extended. with legion instances of unfairness during procedure due to insufficiency of following with assorted specifications.

outlined in legislative acts such as the Children ( Criminal Proceedings ) Act 1987
( NSW ) and the Children’s Court Act 1987 ( NSW ) .

Condemnable jurisprudence is said to run to compensate the wrongs of persons in the community. on behalf of the province. It is a affair of public jurisprudence. where the province prosecution Acts of the Apostless on behalf of all members of society to give the most appropriate requital for the persons incorrect to society. Yet. Young person Conferences as a diversionary strategy are questioned in their ability to accomplish justness for the person affected by the offense. and therefore justness for society. In 2003. 1250 Youth Justice Conferences were run as options to the Children’s Court. Through a young person conference. an single experiences shame in forepart of the eyes of confidants and must see a signifier of penitence in forepart of these confidants. It is said to accomplish justness for immature wrongdoers as it is non overly confrontational and produces an accomplishable result program. agreed upon by both the wrongdoer and the victim. But. the inquiry remains as to if this is in actuality an accomplishment of justness.

Conferences are considered by many to be a progressive attack to juvenile justness because they recognise the rights of immature wrongdoers. their victims. and both their households and community to make up one's mind what to make about the harm caused by the offender’s actions. They besides provide a forum for discoursing and turn toing many of the complex issues associated with immature peoples piquing. In a docudrama. titled “Joe’s Conference: what happens at a young person justness conference” . produced by

the Redfern Legal Centre Publishing. in 2000. depicts the procedure of young person justness conferences as it follows the narrative of Joe. a young person wrongdoer who stole a auto. preceded to destruct the auto and was so caught by the constabulary. and sent to a young person justness conference. At the decision of the docudrama. Joe’s agreed outcome program includes community service and undertaking vocational preparation at a certified mechanic’s work store. No compensation is rewarded for the victim. who has lost his auto. Although agreed upon by both the wrongdoer and the victim. justness. in the eyes of many. may hold non been achieved.

Yet. contrary to this sentiment. in an article featured on the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. NSW. titled “Re-offending by immature people cautioned or conferenced” . released on the 3rd of January 2007. found that “Juveniles who receive a cautiousness or a youth justness conference are less likely to re-offend than those who are referred to the Children’s Court” . Using statistics given by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. the article states that “Forty-two per cent of those cautioned and 58 per cent of those dealt with at a young person justness conference had a farther offense proved against them in the Children’s Court over the five-year follow-up period” and “only a little proportion of those cautioned ( 5. 2 per cent ) or conferenced ( 10. 8 per cent ) committed an offense serious plenty to justify a tutelary sentence within five old ages of being cautioned or conferenced” . It is clear that Youth Conferencing can accomplish justness. because re-offending rates are decreased.

Not merely this. justness is

achieved for persons who are able to face the wrongdoer and show their sentiments. This is depicted in the article titled “Justice in the cell with no bars” . written by Jock Cheetham. which appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald on the 29th of October. 2004. Journalist. Jock Cheetham. observes the Youth Conference. on status that “no one except the convener is identified” . The Youth Justice Conference was held to make a successful result program for the wrongdoer. who is known as ‘Dave’ . for offenses larceny. hooliganism and driving under the influence of intoxicant. This article allows the apprehension of how Youth Justice Conferences do in fact achieve justness. as it states how the victims felt as a consequence of the Conference. when the victims and Dave agreed that the wrongdoer. Dave “pay $ 500 and make 20 hours community work at a Police and Citizens Youth Club” . One of the victims. known as “Jacquline” provinces. “But I was still a spot angry at the terminal. I still experience he got off a spot easy. It was good because we felt it was over and done with. It doesn’t wipe it all off. but you feel portion of the procedure. ”

It is clear that Youth Justice Conferences do accomplish justness for victims and let rehabilitation. and therefore justness. for wrongdoers. Not merely this. by deviating instances off from the Children’s Court. a much greater resource efficiency is gained and greater entree for all immature wrongdoers is advancing. fostering the justness provided. Juvenile Justice Centers and other correctional detainment installations. do non accomplish justness. Chris Cureen. a criminologist. states “the most you can

state about imprisonment is it takes a immature individual out of circulation for a period of clip and so they are no as probably to perpetrate an offense while they’re behind bars. but in footings of disincentive they don’t work. they don’t halt other childs from perpetrating offenses and they surely don’t stop those same childs from perpetrating offenses when they get out” . Juvenile Justice Centers are said to “teach crime” so that immature wrongdoers are more adept felons upon release – in kernel. Criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland. theory of differential association.

It is easy and most pleasing to society to set vernal wrongdoers behind bars. but possibly justness is non achieved by making this. as it hardens the immature wrongdoer and Fosters further condemnable behavior. Yet. the inquiry remains as to why captivity installations offer accomplishments for kids to gain a good life upon release. Chris Cueen. provinces. “One of the most profound sarcasms out of something like this is that someplace like Kariong ( the highest security juvenile justness Centre in NSW ) has the best employment chances. so you lock person up in kind of the maximal security environment. and there at the terminal point you begin to five them accomplishments or instruction that should’ve been offered at the really start of the process” . Juvenile Justice Centers offer educational plans to rehabilitate immature wrongdoers. but excessively. surrogate offense. It is dependent on each person as to whether the correctional installation is good or damaging to the wrongdoer. Furthermore. Torahs modulating Juvenile Justice uphold international human rights criterions. such as the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child ( CROC )


The statues modulating juvenile justness provide for non-discrimination ( article 4 ) . the best involvements of the kid ( article 3 ) . endurance and development ( article 6 ) and engagement in determination devising ( article 12 ) . Justice is achieved for immature wrongdoers as statues modulating wrongdoers protect ratified human rights conventions. Not merely this. justness for juvenile wrongdoers is achieved as it is an offense to print or air the name or other placing features of a immature individual looking before or convicted by the children’s tribunal. This achieves justness as it avoids future stigmatization of the immature wrongdoer and besides by guaranting maximal chances for personal growing and development. Decision

Overall juvenile justness jurisprudence. as assessed in the old subdivision. promotes fairness. equality and justness. The common jurisprudence purposes for rehabilitation of wrongdoers. but will non conceal from more serious sentencing options. such as detainment. If this is continually maintained as the drive force behind the Juvenile Justice System. the pinnacle point of the effectivity will be reached. For the system to be most effectual. a balance must be achieved between the wrongdoer and sentencing options. staying in proportion. Although great betterments are needed in countries of covering with minority wrongdoers to accomplish formal equality before the jurisprudence. every bit good as farther rigorous enforcement of rules set out in Juvenile Justice regulative statues to accomplish equity. entire justness. and the extreme effectivity of the system will be reached.



  1. Cunneen. C. White. R. Juvenile Justice: Young person and Crime in Australia. Oxford University Press. Melbourne. 2002
  2. Loughman. J. Mackinnon. G. Hot Topic 49: Juvenile Justice. Legal Information Access Center. NSW.


  • Findlay. M. Odgers. S. Yeo. S. Australian Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. NSW. 1999
  • Healey. K. Issues in Society Volume 90: Young person and The Law. The Spinney Press. NSW. 1998
  • Healey. K. Issues in Society Volume 40: Juvenile Justice. The Spinney Press. NSW. 1995
  • Department of Juvenile Justice. What’s Happening in Juvenile Justice in NSW? .
    Department of Juvenile Justice. Sydney. 2000
  • Ardagh. A. Young person Conferencing: Contrasting Models. Charles Sturt University. Wagga Wagga. 1996
  • O’Connor. I. and Sweetapple. P. Children in Justice. Longman Cheshire. NSW. 1988
  • Western. J. Lynch. M. Ogilvie. E. Understanding Youth Crime: An Australian Study. Ashgate. NSW. 2003
  • Roberts. A. Juvenile Justice Sourcebook: Past. Present and Future. Oxford University Press. New York. 2004
  • Cornu. Daryle. Miller. A. Robinson. S. Kelly. T. Steed. K. Cambridge Legal Surveies: HSC. Cambridge University Press. Melbourne. 2006
  • Gleeson. W. Brogan. M. Siow. V. Hayes. M. Thiering. N. Heinemann Legal Surveies: HSC Course. Heinemann. NSW. 2003
  • Brassil. D. Brassil. B. Excel HSC: Legal Surveies. Pascal Press. NSW. 2005
  • Draper. H. Legal Surveies: HSC. Longman. Melbourne. 2002
  • McCarthy. J. Suter. K. Watt. R. Legal Studies 2. Macmillan. South Yarra. 2000
  • Documentaries:

    1. Vivian Ultman. Insight: Juvenile Justice. SBS Australia screen on March 3rd 2000
    2. Fiona Cochrane. Youth Express: Is Justice For all? . Marcom Projects. 1993
    3. Joe’s Conference: what happens at a young person justness conference. Redfern Legal Centre Publishing. 2000


    1. Liz Gooch. “Aboriginal Prison Rates Increasing” in The Age on the 12th of July 2005
    2. Jock Cheetham. “Justice in the cell with no bars” . The Sydney Morning Herald on the 29th of October. 2004.
    3. “Re-offending by immature people cautioned or conferenced” . Bureau of Crime Statistics and

    Research. NSW. 3rd of January 2007


    1. Accessed via hypertext transfer protocol: //beta. austlii. edu. au/
    2. R V Clifford Cortez ( Unreported Supreme Court. 3 October 2002 )
    3. R V Phung and Huynh [ 2001 ] NSWSC 115 revised – 15/05/2001
    4. R V GDP ( 1991 ) 53 A Crim R 112
    5. R V Wilkie. NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. unreported 2 July 1992
    6. R V Vitros. NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. unreported 3 September 1993
    7. R V ALH. NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. unreported 26 May 1995
    8. Note: Cases in the NSW Children’s Court are heard in camera. and could therefore non be used in the study

    Web sites:

    1. hypertext transfer protocol: //beta. austlii. edu. au/ . accessed 23/2/07
    2. hypertext transfer protocol: //home. comcast. net/~ddemelo/crime/differ. hypertext markup language. accessed 23/2/07
    3. World Wide Web. aic. gov. gold. accessed 23/2/07
    4. World Wide Web. djj. gov. gold. accessed 23/2/07
    5. World Wide Web. acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene. gov. gold. accessed 23/2/07
    Get an explanation on any task
    Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds