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

Preview

Summary

Grade A essay on assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system when dealing with young offenders....

Description

Assess the effectiveness of the criminal justice system when dealing with young offenders. In your response you must explain why children and young people are treated differently when questioned or arrested and during court proceedings, as well as alternatives to court. The criminal justice system is based on the ideals of equality and fairness for all people under the law, including those who may be socially disadvantaged, such as children and young people. However, because young people lack the experience and knowledge of an adult, they are treated differently to ensure that not only do they understand the process they are undergoing, but also that they are given a chance for rehabilitation and a normal life after their contact with the justice system. The criminal justice system also must comply with the Convention of the Rights of Child (CROC) which is an international framework put in place to protect children. The presumption of doli incapax and Youth Justice Conferencing have aided in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system when in contact with young offenders, however, effectiveness is also limited by the 2007 amendment to s22A of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) and the negative impact of youth justice centres. The age of criminal responsibility is a significant concept when considering young offenders. It is the age from which a child can be held legally responsible for their actions. The age of criminal responsibility in Australia under the presumption of doli incapax (s3 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987) is 10 years old. From 10-14 years old, the presumption of doli incapax may be used, however, it is rebuttable if the prosecution can prove that the offender knew the severity of their actions. The age of criminal responsibility tends to be controversial as people argue that at 10 years old a child cannot be expected to have a morally correct and concrete view of right and wrong. After the brutal torture and murder of James Bulger, a 2 year old, by two 10 year old boys, there was a push for the boys to be tried as adults, which they were, due to being of the age of criminal responsibility (which in England, like Australia, is 10). This was later criticised by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in 1999 that they had not received a fair trial by being tried in public in an adult court. However, at the trial, the prosecution successfully rebutted the principle of doli incapax, therefore allegedly justifying the treatment of the two boys. They were sentenced to detention at ‘her majesty's pleasure’ (indefinitely) and have been given new identities. This case is still debated due to its brutal and controversial nature. Overall the presumption of Doli Incapax is effective in protecting children when faced with questions of law, and convicting them when appropriate. Children are treated differently by the law to prevent them from being exploited, protect them from the consequences of making uninformed decisions, and to give them a better chance at rehabilitation. ALRC’s 2010 ‘Seen and Heard’ report stated that ‘[r]esearch has shown that prisons often create institutionalisation or dependency, are a perfect training ground for criminal activity, as well as a network base for meeting criminals and leave children with no knowledge of basic life skills for reintegration into society.’ And therefore, prioritising punishment when convicting a young offender merely makes them more likely to reoffend, which is why rehabilitation is the key focus when sentencing young people. That is why Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), people under the age of 18 are defined as ‘vulnerable people’ and are given special protection when arrested and detained for questioning, and why the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) offers protections such as having a trusted adult with the child to guide them through the process, and states evidence obtained under certain circumstances as inadmissible in order to prevent exploitation of a young person’s possible naivete.

In New South Wales, the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) provides the main alternative program for young offenders. The implementation of Youth Justice Conferencing is outlined under part 5 of the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) with the aim of improving the rehabilitation and protection of young offenders. As a method of restorative justice, Youth Justice Conferencing involves bringing together the offender, the victim, and occasionally other parties such as family members, offering a chance for the offender to not only take responsibility for their actions, but also the opportunity to rectify their misdemeanour. A SMH article released in 2014, titled “Racist attack on bus: offender’s youth justice conference” details a young boy’s remorse for his actions, further enhanced by a police statement that deems the Youth Justice Conferencing mechanism as a “constructive system… measure for justice and closure… offering a positive way forward”. This form of alternative sentencing has been proven effective through statistics from the AIC that found 99% of offenders who used Youth Justice Conferencing between 2012-13 were satisfied with the result. However, it can be argued that the restricted jurisdiction of Youth Justice Conferencing (it does not cover summary offences, which is the type of offence that the majority of young offenders commit), is a hindrance to its effectiveness, as well as the fact that they are not . Regardless, the overarching advantages of Youth Justice Conferencing add to decreased recidivism rates and the encouragement of rehabilitation for young people, ultimately proving that Youth Justice Conferencing is an effective measure in the juvenile justice system. While the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) protects the rights of children in the court, the implementation of Amendments to section 22A of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW), enacted in 2007, has been ineffective in aiding the rehabilitation of young offenders due to tougher bail conditions (such as movement restrictions and curfews), as well as ensuring that individuals can only make one application for bail. The effects of this incarceration are largely negative and detrimental to rehabilitation. Notably, these amendments also account for the increasing number of youth on remand in NSW- namely, a 21.8% rise in the number of youth on remand from 2014/15 to 2018/19. Youth offenders are usually remanded for welfare reasons such as a failure to comply with curfew, and as four out of five young offenders held on remand do not get a custodial sentence once they’ve been to court, this amendment’s provisions have added to the negative experience many young people have with the criminal justice system, reinforcing a poor perception of it. Eighty per cent of the young people on remand due to these changes do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, yet they still suffer the negative effects of being incarcerated in such institutions. In order to attempt to combat this, a new Bail Act 2013 (NSW) was enacted and commenced operation in May 2014; however, this does not fully counteract the fact that the average cost of detaining a young person in a Youth Justice centre is roughly $170 000 per year while proven intensive rehabilitation programs can be run for a fraction of that cost. Though these programs are resource efficient, they do not receive a sufficient amount of government support or funding, which may be a result of the government’s need to be seen to be tough on crime. However, it is to be questioned whether or not the government should enact this policy on young offenders who are unfamiliar with the law, and whether or not that actually helps them. The criminal justice system is quite effective in its methods of dealing with young offenders; it has several noteworthy methods of ensuring fairness. However, a refusal to widen the budget of rehabilitation programs for young offenders and children is detrimental to their contact with the system as incarceration is pushed forwards instead where unnecessary. The criminal justice system in NSW requires further consideration of what would aid young

people instead of punish them for more minor offences; while it already does this, it does not do it to the extent that would benefit young offenders....