In this part of the course, you learn to:
- Explain why young offenders are treated differently in the criminal justice system.
- Discuss the issues surrounding the age of criminal responsibility.
- Assess the effectiveness of the criminal justice system when dealing with young offenders.
How are 'Young Offenders' treated differently?
This week on Background Briefing, @oz_f investigates why police are prepared to use anti-terror laws to stop YouTube rappers OneFour performing. □ @DayvisH Listen here https://t.co/fMOk0aJxZy pic.twitter.com/QWq0WhA6ox
— Background Briefing (@BackgroundBrief) December 12, 2019
Turn and talk, then write.1. Who are OneFour?
2. What criminal charges have been laid against members of OneFour? 3. Why have OneFour come to the attention of NSW Police? 4. What actions have NSW Police taken against this group? Under what legislation have these warnings been investigated? 5. Are OneFour young offenders? Do they associate with young offenders? 6. How have they been treated differently? |
Police powers under the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997
The Act sets out a procedure for the Attorney General to declare certain areas “operational areas” for the purposes of the Act. Four operational areas were initially declared, namely Orange, Ballina, Moree and Coonamble. Very few areas have been keen to participate in the scheme and some of the original areas have now lapsed. The overall interest in the Act has been much less than originally foreshadowed. Part 3 of the Act sets out a number of special powers given to police in relation to children who they believe are under the age of 16 who are in a public place. These powers include
- taking the child home or into the Care of DOCS (section 22) However they cannot leave them at the Police station. (section 23)
- asking for the child’s name, age and address (section 27)
- using reasonable force to remove a child from a public place (section 28)
- removing concealed weapons and doing a frisk search (section 29)
SHOULD THE BEGA VALLEY BECOME AN OPERATIONAL AREA? JUSTIFY YOUR ANSWER!
The Act sets out a procedure for the Attorney General to declare certain areas “operational areas” for the purposes of the Act. Four operational areas were initially declared, namely Orange, Ballina, Moree and Coonamble. Very few areas have been keen to participate in the scheme and some of the original areas have now lapsed. The overall interest in the Act has been much less than originally foreshadowed. Part 3 of the Act sets out a number of special powers given to police in relation to children who they believe are under the age of 16 who are in a public place. These powers include
- taking the child home or into the Care of DOCS (section 22) However they cannot leave them at the Police station. (section 23)
- asking for the child’s name, age and address (section 27)
- using reasonable force to remove a child from a public place (section 28)
- removing concealed weapons and doing a frisk search (section 29)
SHOULD THE BEGA VALLEY BECOME AN OPERATIONAL AREA? JUSTIFY YOUR ANSWER!
Can you explain why young offenders are treated differently in the criminal justice system?
Reference: EXCEL: p. 58
Young offenders are treated differently from adults in the criminal justice system for the following reasons.
◗ Young people are given special protection by the law in many circumstances (see EXCEL: Section 4.1.4, pages 214–19), so it would be inconsistent to treat them as harshly as adults in criminal matters.
◗ Young offenders are more likely to be intimidated by, and less likely to understand, court procedure than are adults.
◗ A young offender does not always understand as well as an adult the consequences of his or her action.
◗ Young offenders have a greater chance of resuming normal life and becoming worthwhile citizens and should be encouraged to do so.
Young offenders are treated differently from adults in the criminal justice system for the following reasons.
◗ Young people are given special protection by the law in many circumstances (see EXCEL: Section 4.1.4, pages 214–19), so it would be inconsistent to treat them as harshly as adults in criminal matters.
◗ Young offenders are more likely to be intimidated by, and less likely to understand, court procedure than are adults.
◗ A young offender does not always understand as well as an adult the consequences of his or her action.
◗ Young offenders have a greater chance of resuming normal life and becoming worthwhile citizens and should be encouraged to do so.
Read through the paper from LEGAL AID, link below. In particular:
Police powers under the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997
The Act sets out a procedure for the Attorney General to declare certain areas “operational areas” for the purposes of the Act. Four operational areas were initially declared, namely Orange, Ballina, Moree and Coonamble. Very few areas have been keen to participate in the scheme and some of the original areas have now lapsed. The overall interest in the Act has been much less than originally foreshadowed. Part 3 of the Act sets out a number of special powers given to police in relation to children who they believe are under the age of 16 who are in a public place. These powers include
- taking the child home or into the Care of DOCS (section 22) However they cannot leave them at the Police station.(section 23)
- asking for the child’s name, age and address (section 27)
- using reasonable force to remove a child from a public place (section 28)
- removing concealed weapons and doing a frisk search (section 29)
SHOULD THE BEGA VALLEY BECOME AN OPERATIONAL AREA? JUSTIFY YOUR ANSWER!
Police powers under the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997
The Act sets out a procedure for the Attorney General to declare certain areas “operational areas” for the purposes of the Act. Four operational areas were initially declared, namely Orange, Ballina, Moree and Coonamble. Very few areas have been keen to participate in the scheme and some of the original areas have now lapsed. The overall interest in the Act has been much less than originally foreshadowed. Part 3 of the Act sets out a number of special powers given to police in relation to children who they believe are under the age of 16 who are in a public place. These powers include
- taking the child home or into the Care of DOCS (section 22) However they cannot leave them at the Police station.(section 23)
- asking for the child’s name, age and address (section 27)
- using reasonable force to remove a child from a public place (section 28)
- removing concealed weapons and doing a frisk search (section 29)
SHOULD THE BEGA VALLEY BECOME AN OPERATIONAL AREA? JUSTIFY YOUR ANSWER!
children-and-police-powers.pdf | |
File Size: | 45 kb |
File Type: |
Can you discuss the issues surrounding the age of criminal responsibility?
Reference: EXCEL. p. 57
The age of criminal responsibility raises media and community interest from time to time, particularly when a child is involved in causing serous harm to others, such as in the death of Corey Davis in 1998 (see Case Study EXCEL, p. 57).
Some people argue that the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered, while others argue that the current law regarding the age of criminal responsibility should be retained. These arguments are summarised below.
◗ The principle of doli incapax is old-fashioned, and doesn’t hold true for modern children. Others argue that because the idea is very old, dating back to the seventh century, and has survived so long, we should be wary of changing it.
◗ Modern children have compulsory education from the age of five, and so develop faster both mentally and physically. Others argue that while school may generally contribute to educating children, children who commit offences often do not regularly attend school because of truancy or exclusion. Furthermore, it is the child’s social and family environment which influences his or her understanding of right and wrong—not school.
◗ Modern children are more sophisticated, having a greater understanding of the world because of technology. Others argue that technology may actually lessen children’s ability to determine what is real—they may expect a seriously injured person to recover quickly, as happens in cartoons or video games. Also, in past centuries, children worked from a young age and were more responsible than they are now.
◗ Children are getting away with crime at the expense of community protection— victims of serious crimes are just as badly hurt, and deserve there to be some sort of punishment for the perpetrator, even if he or she is a child. Others argue that adults are acquitted from criminal serious offences if it is found through a successfully argued defence that they did not have they necessary mens rea, so it is inconsistent to treat children more harshly.
The age of criminal responsibility raises media and community interest from time to time, particularly when a child is involved in causing serous harm to others, such as in the death of Corey Davis in 1998 (see Case Study EXCEL, p. 57).
Some people argue that the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered, while others argue that the current law regarding the age of criminal responsibility should be retained. These arguments are summarised below.
◗ The principle of doli incapax is old-fashioned, and doesn’t hold true for modern children. Others argue that because the idea is very old, dating back to the seventh century, and has survived so long, we should be wary of changing it.
◗ Modern children have compulsory education from the age of five, and so develop faster both mentally and physically. Others argue that while school may generally contribute to educating children, children who commit offences often do not regularly attend school because of truancy or exclusion. Furthermore, it is the child’s social and family environment which influences his or her understanding of right and wrong—not school.
◗ Modern children are more sophisticated, having a greater understanding of the world because of technology. Others argue that technology may actually lessen children’s ability to determine what is real—they may expect a seriously injured person to recover quickly, as happens in cartoons or video games. Also, in past centuries, children worked from a young age and were more responsible than they are now.
◗ Children are getting away with crime at the expense of community protection— victims of serious crimes are just as badly hurt, and deserve there to be some sort of punishment for the perpetrator, even if he or she is a child. Others argue that adults are acquitted from criminal serious offences if it is found through a successfully argued defence that they did not have they necessary mens rea, so it is inconsistent to treat children more harshly.
Can you "Assess the effectiveness of the criminal justice system when dealing with young offenders"?
Here's a sample essay from https://www.acehsc.net/assess-the-effectiveness-of-the-criminal-justice-system-when-dealing-with-young-offenders/
The criminal justice system is effective in approaching and dealing with young offenders, however it does have some limitations. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), whilst the Australian national offender rate is only 2%, offenders aged between 10-19, make up 26% of that total offender rate. Due to the large proportion of crime committed by the youth of Australia’s society, the criminal justice system has employed unique policies, which protects the rights and wellbeing of young people (offenders), as well as society’s needs and interests. Furthermore, the system acknowledges a juvenile’s maturity and vulnerability, through its application of the doli incapax principle, when considering aspects such as, sentencing and punishment. The criminal justice system also takes into account the factors influencing juvenile crime, some of which include, peer pressure and socioeconomic status, and as a result, promote the initiation of numerous situational and social crime prevention strategies, to reduce the risk of young people being involved in criminal activity. Essentially, the criminal justice system is effective in dealing with young offenders, due to the way in which the legal system enacts legislation, according to Australia’s obligations to international documents, such as the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC), hence protecting the individual rights of young people, even though this may lead to unjust outcomes for victims and society.
The Children’s Court of NSW, which includes specialised court procedures and legal personnel, is greatly effective in dealing with young offenders. The court is governed under the Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) , which ensures that Children’s courts remain closed, hence prohibiting the general public and media from viewing the proceedings. The closed and discrete nature of the Children’s Court, is beneficial as it protects the identity of the young people. Henceforth, effectively upholding the individual’s rights of children, by reaffirming Australia’s obligations to the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC), by ‘taking all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of exploitation’, Article 19 (1), and by ‘ensuring that a child’s privacy is fully respected at all stages of proceedings’, Article 40 (2). However, the Children’s Court is limited in regards to its resources and accessibility, considering that there are only seven Children’s courts in Australia. Furthermore, ‘A Study of the Children’s Court of New South Wales’, noted that young people and families ‘are completely left out of the system, which is governing so much of their lives, including timeframes and adjournments’, concluding that ‘they are isolated and oblivious to what is going on in the court system’. Despite, small findings of lacked accessibility within the Children’s Court, it is an appropriate aspect of the judicial arm of government, and is effective in dealing with young offenders.
The Children’s Court of NSW, which includes specialised court procedures and legal personnel, is greatly effective in dealing with young offenders. The court is governed under the Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) , which ensures that Children’s courts remain closed, hence prohibiting the general public and media from viewing the proceedings. The closed and discrete nature of the Children’s Court, is beneficial as it protects the identity of the young people. Henceforth, effectively upholding the individual’s rights of children, by reaffirming Australia’s obligations to the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC), by ‘taking all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of exploitation’, Article 19 (1), and by ‘ensuring that a child’s privacy is fully respected at all stages of proceedings’, Article 40 (2). However, the Children’s Court is limited in regards to its resources and accessibility, considering that there are only seven Children’s courts in Australia. Furthermore, ‘A Study of the Children’s Court of New South Wales’, noted that young people and families ‘are completely left out of the system, which is governing so much of their lives, including timeframes and adjournments’, concluding that ‘they are isolated and oblivious to what is going on in the court system’. Despite, small findings of lacked accessibility within the Children’s Court, it is an appropriate aspect of the judicial arm of government, and is effective in
dealing with young offenders.
Youth justice conferences, is an effective alternate method of punishment and rehabilitation, which is outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). The conferences, meet society’s needs, and are usually more appropriate than court hearings, considering that victims are able to express and suggest possible outcome plans, to achieve justice and retribution, whereas in a court situations, victims are largely excluded. Such conferences are also beneficial to the young offenders, as it will allow them more freedom, to take responsibility for their actions, and to actively participate in the rectification of their offences, and in their own rehabilitation. However, youth justice conferences, are not applicable to a wide range of offences, and therefore excludes some young offenders from the benefits of conferencing, which may possibly lead to their detainment, which can be very detrimental to the young person. According to a report, ‘Restorative justice in Australia’, by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), during 2012-13, 99% of youth justice conferencing participants (victim, offender and representatives) were
satisfied with the outcome of the conference. It was also reported that rates of recidivism were substantially low, amongst young offenders who had gone through the conference process. Overall, youth justice conferences, are a de-escalated approach to punishment, and are effective in dealing with young offenders and in achieving retribution and rehabilitation for society.
Justice Juvenile Centres (JJC’s), are effective in dealing with young offenders who have been sentenced to detention. JJC’s meet society’s needs and achieve justice, by observing correctional procedures over the young offenders, hence implementing deterrence and retribution. Additionally, JJC’s are effective in prioritising the security of young persons and upholding their individual rights, as the segregation of the youth, from convicted adults, correlates with Article 10 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that ‘accused/convicted juvenile persons shall be speedily separated from accused/convicted adults’, to which Australia is a signatory. Furthermore, according to an article, ‘What life’s really like in juvenile detention’, published by News Online, in May 2015, direct quotes from a 16 year old offender, Justin, held in juvenile detention, ensured that the centre provided many “opportunities, including HSC and TAFE courses”. The prevalence of educational, health and spiritual services in JJC’s is imperative, considering that they alleviate pressures and deterrents, which would otherwise negatively impact the wellbeing and rehabilitation, of young people, whilst in detention.
Hence, such services effectively uphold the individual rights of young people, as they correspond with Australia’s obligations under Article 6 (2) of CRC to ‘ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child’. However, juvenile detention does, to some extent, infringe upon the rights and freedoms of young people, however to no avail, as an article, ‘Jail does not deter young offenders’, published by The Australia, highlights that “there no significant difference between juveniles given a custodial penalty and those given a non-custodial penalty in the likelihood of reconviction,”. Which indicates, that rather than incarceration, non-custodial sentences and youth justice conferences should be explored and invested into, for a larger amount of young offenders. Moreover, JJC’s are effective in dealing with young offenders, as they are the most enforceable form of punishment, and facilitate/encourage growth and rehabilitation.
In conjunction, the criminal justice system is effective in dealing with young offenders. As the system applies specifically orchestrated mechanisms, legislation and services, to the cases of young offenders. In regards to the limitations of the criminal justice system, increased efficiency of the Children’s Court and increased resources of rehabilitation, would be advantageous in increasing accessibility and lower the rates of youth offences and recidivism. Conclusively, however, the procedures and processes of the criminal justice system are effective, in recognising the individual rights and freedoms of young people, whilst also achieving justice, and balancing the needs of society.
The Children’s Court of NSW, which includes specialised court procedures and legal personnel, is greatly effective in dealing with young offenders. The court is governed under the Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) , which ensures that Children’s courts remain closed, hence prohibiting the general public and media from viewing the proceedings. The closed and discrete nature of the Children’s Court, is beneficial as it protects the identity of the young people. Henceforth, effectively upholding the individual’s rights of children, by reaffirming Australia’s obligations to the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC), by ‘taking all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of exploitation’, Article 19 (1), and by ‘ensuring that a child’s privacy is fully respected at all stages of proceedings’, Article 40 (2). However, the Children’s Court is limited in regards to its resources and accessibility, considering that there are only seven Children’s courts in Australia. Furthermore, ‘A Study of the Children’s Court of New South Wales’, noted that young people and families ‘are completely left out of the system, which is governing so much of their lives, including timeframes and adjournments’, concluding that ‘they are isolated and oblivious to what is going on in the court system’. Despite, small findings of lacked accessibility within the Children’s Court, it is an appropriate aspect of the judicial arm of government, and is effective in dealing with young offenders.
The Children’s Court of NSW, which includes specialised court procedures and legal personnel, is greatly effective in dealing with young offenders. The court is governed under the Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) , which ensures that Children’s courts remain closed, hence prohibiting the general public and media from viewing the proceedings. The closed and discrete nature of the Children’s Court, is beneficial as it protects the identity of the young people. Henceforth, effectively upholding the individual’s rights of children, by reaffirming Australia’s obligations to the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC), by ‘taking all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of exploitation’, Article 19 (1), and by ‘ensuring that a child’s privacy is fully respected at all stages of proceedings’, Article 40 (2). However, the Children’s Court is limited in regards to its resources and accessibility, considering that there are only seven Children’s courts in Australia. Furthermore, ‘A Study of the Children’s Court of New South Wales’, noted that young people and families ‘are completely left out of the system, which is governing so much of their lives, including timeframes and adjournments’, concluding that ‘they are isolated and oblivious to what is going on in the court system’. Despite, small findings of lacked accessibility within the Children’s Court, it is an appropriate aspect of the judicial arm of government, and is effective in
dealing with young offenders.
Youth justice conferences, is an effective alternate method of punishment and rehabilitation, which is outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). The conferences, meet society’s needs, and are usually more appropriate than court hearings, considering that victims are able to express and suggest possible outcome plans, to achieve justice and retribution, whereas in a court situations, victims are largely excluded. Such conferences are also beneficial to the young offenders, as it will allow them more freedom, to take responsibility for their actions, and to actively participate in the rectification of their offences, and in their own rehabilitation. However, youth justice conferences, are not applicable to a wide range of offences, and therefore excludes some young offenders from the benefits of conferencing, which may possibly lead to their detainment, which can be very detrimental to the young person. According to a report, ‘Restorative justice in Australia’, by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), during 2012-13, 99% of youth justice conferencing participants (victim, offender and representatives) were
satisfied with the outcome of the conference. It was also reported that rates of recidivism were substantially low, amongst young offenders who had gone through the conference process. Overall, youth justice conferences, are a de-escalated approach to punishment, and are effective in dealing with young offenders and in achieving retribution and rehabilitation for society.
Justice Juvenile Centres (JJC’s), are effective in dealing with young offenders who have been sentenced to detention. JJC’s meet society’s needs and achieve justice, by observing correctional procedures over the young offenders, hence implementing deterrence and retribution. Additionally, JJC’s are effective in prioritising the security of young persons and upholding their individual rights, as the segregation of the youth, from convicted adults, correlates with Article 10 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that ‘accused/convicted juvenile persons shall be speedily separated from accused/convicted adults’, to which Australia is a signatory. Furthermore, according to an article, ‘What life’s really like in juvenile detention’, published by News Online, in May 2015, direct quotes from a 16 year old offender, Justin, held in juvenile detention, ensured that the centre provided many “opportunities, including HSC and TAFE courses”. The prevalence of educational, health and spiritual services in JJC’s is imperative, considering that they alleviate pressures and deterrents, which would otherwise negatively impact the wellbeing and rehabilitation, of young people, whilst in detention.
Hence, such services effectively uphold the individual rights of young people, as they correspond with Australia’s obligations under Article 6 (2) of CRC to ‘ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child’. However, juvenile detention does, to some extent, infringe upon the rights and freedoms of young people, however to no avail, as an article, ‘Jail does not deter young offenders’, published by The Australia, highlights that “there no significant difference between juveniles given a custodial penalty and those given a non-custodial penalty in the likelihood of reconviction,”. Which indicates, that rather than incarceration, non-custodial sentences and youth justice conferences should be explored and invested into, for a larger amount of young offenders. Moreover, JJC’s are effective in dealing with young offenders, as they are the most enforceable form of punishment, and facilitate/encourage growth and rehabilitation.
In conjunction, the criminal justice system is effective in dealing with young offenders. As the system applies specifically orchestrated mechanisms, legislation and services, to the cases of young offenders. In regards to the limitations of the criminal justice system, increased efficiency of the Children’s Court and increased resources of rehabilitation, would be advantageous in increasing accessibility and lower the rates of youth offences and recidivism. Conclusively, however, the procedures and processes of the criminal justice system are effective, in recognising the individual rights and freedoms of young people, whilst also achieving justice, and balancing the needs of society.