Submission to the inquiry into the high level of involvement of Indigenous juveniles and young adults in the criminal justice system

Introduction • The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) is Australia's national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice. • The Institute seeks to promote justice and reduce crime by undertaking and communicating evidence-based research to inform policy and practice. • The AIC is governed by the Criminology Research Act and has been in operation since 1973. • The AIC is pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the Committee's Inquiry into the high level of involvement of Indigenous juveniles and young adults in the criminal justice system. • There is a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that Indigenous young people are significantly over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system in Australia.

A promise and a possibility : the limitations of the traditional criminal justice system as an explanation for the emergence of restorative justice

The claim that restorative justice emerged in response to the failings of the traditional criminal justice system is frequently made and rarely challenged in the restorative justice literature. It is stated unproblematically, as though it is an unassailable fact rather than a powerful truth claim, thereby positioning restorative justice as a natural, progressive and superior model of justice in comparison with the traditional criminal justice system. This truth claim therefore bestows restorative justice with a legitimacy that is difficult to challenge or refute. Drawing on a Foucaultian genealogy of restorative justice, this article seeks to destabilise the truth claim that restorative justice emerged in response to the failings of the criminal justice system. While the shortcomings of the traditional criminal justice system may provide a backdrop to the emergence of restorative justice, this article argues that such a possibility makes restorative justice a possibility rather than an inevitability.

Juvenile justice: Youth and crime in Australia [Fifth Edition]

Juvenile Justice 5th edition explores youth and crime in Australia, and the institutions and agencies associated with the administration of juvenile justice. It provides an accessible introduction to the main concepts and issues of juvenile justice and critically analyses the principles, policies and practices associated with it. The book provides clear information across a broad range of areas, and raises a number of questions about the institutions of juvenile justice and how we think about issues of juvenile justice.

Restorative justice: Making amends, repairing relationships and healing

Since the late 1970s, there has been a significant expansion in techniques for using mediated interactions between offenders and those affected by their behaviour. This trend began with juvenile justice conferencing, family group conferencing and Indigenous sentencing circles. The umbrella term used to describe these techniques and processes is ‘restorative justice’ (‘RJ’ to its fans and practitioners).Two important catalysts for this expansion were an increased awareness of the marginalisation of victims in the criminal justice system, and concerns over climbing recidivism rates.

Promising interventions for reducing Indigenous juvenile offending

Indigenous juveniles (those aged 10 to 16 years in Queensland and 10 to 17 years in all other jurisdictions) are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, and their over-representation becomes more pronounced at the most severe end of the system (ie in detention). Recent figures show that Indigenous juveniles are 24 times as likely to be detained in a juvenile correctional facility as non-Indigenous juveniles (Richards & Lyneham 2010). A variety of explanations for this over-representation have been proposed, including: • lack of access or disparate access to diversionary programs (Allard et al. 2010; Cunneen 2008; Snowball 2008); • systemic discrimination against Indigenous juveniles (eg police bias against Indigenous juveniles) (Cunneen 2008; Kenny & Lennings 2007); • inadequate resourcing of Aboriginal legal services (Cunneen & Schwartz 2008); and • genuinely higher levels of offending by Indigenous juveniles (Kenny & Lennings 2007; Weatherburn et al. 2003). A range of measures (including diversion and juvenile conferencing programs) has recently been implemented to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention, and minimise the contact of juveniles with the formal criminal justice system. Diversionary measures can only have a limited impact, however, and reducing offending and reoffending have been identified as critical factors to address if the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles is to be reduced (Allard et al. 2010; Weatherburn et al. 2003). While acknowledging that other measures designed to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles are important, this paper reviews the evidence on policies and programs that reduce offending by Indigenous juveniles in Australia. Where relevant, research from comparable jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and Canada, is also discussed.

What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders?

Historically, children in criminal justice proceedings were treated much the same as adults and subject to the same criminal justice processes as adults. Until the early twentieth century, children in Australia were even subjected to the same penalties as adults, including hard labour and corporal and capital punishment (Carrington & Pereira 2009). Until the mid-nineteenth century, there was no separate category of ’juvenile offender’ in Western legal systems and children as young as six years of age were incarcerated in Australian prisons (Cunneen & White 2007). It is widely acknowledged today, however, both in Australia and internationally, that juveniles should be subject to a system of criminal justice that is separate from the adult system and that recognises their inexperience and immaturity. As such, juveniles are typically dealt with separately from adults and treated less harshly than their adult counterparts. The United Nations’ (1985: 2) Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the ‘Beijing Rules’) stress the importance of nations establishing a set of laws, rules and provisions specifically applicable to juvenile offenders and institutions and bodies entrusted with the functions of the administration of juvenile justice and designed to meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders, while protecting their basic rights. In each Australian jurisdiction, except Queensland, a juvenile is defined as a person aged between 10 and 17 years of age, inclusive. In Queensland, a juvenile is defined as a person aged between 10 and 16 years, inclusive. In all jurisdictions, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. That is, children under 10 years of age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions.

International juvenile (in)justice : penal severity and rights compliance

This article focuses on the anomalies and contradictions surrounding the notion of ‘international juvenile justice’, whether in its pessimistic (neoliberal penality and penal severity) or optimistic (universal children’s rights and rights compliance) incarnations. It argues for an analysis which recognises firstly, the uneven, multi-facetted and heterogeneous nature of the processes of globalisation and secondly, how the global, the international, the national and the local are not mutually exclusive but continually interact to re-constitute, re-make and challenge each other.

Developing ethical identities in young offenders through restorative justice practice in Australia

Restorative justice is firmly established in Australian juvenile justice. While the official language used to describe restorative initiatives varies across states and territories, the most common form is a meeting or conference between young offenders and their victims (most commonly known as a family group or youth justice conference). During the past decade, an impressive amount of empirical research has examined how the restorative justice process affects offenders, victims and other participants (such as supporters for young offenders and victims). Results from this line of research are remarkably consistent and show that participants generally regard restorative conferences as procedurally fair and that they are satisfied with the outcomes (eg what young offenders agree to do to make up for their offending behaviour, such as offer a sincere apology or perform work for the victim or the community). What is less common, however, is the perception among participants that restorative conferences achieve the key aim of restoration.By ‘restoration’ we refer to encounters where ‘offenders apologise, their apologies are accepted, victims offer forgiveness,and conferences conclude with a feeling of mutual good will’.

Victoria's “Day in Prison Program” : an evaluation and critique

The use of “Day in Prison” programs to deter young adult offenders is a concept which originated in the United States and was replicated in Australia during the late 1970s. After almost a decade of uncertainty this model of ‘crime prevention’ re-emerged in Victoria with the introduction of a pilot “Day in Prison” program. This article traces the development and operation of the Victorian experience and provides evaluation research findings which conclude that coercive, intimidatory and degrading aversion techniques should not be utilised by the criminal justice system for the purposes of individual deterrence.

Tolerance, Freedom, Justice and Peace?: Britain, Australia and anti-Muslim Racism in the UK and Australia before 11 September 2001

Since 11 September 2001, Muslim minorities have experienced intensive "othering" in “Western” countries, above all in those US-led anglophone nations which invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to prosecute their "war on terror". This paper examines the cases of Britain and Australia, where whole communities of Muslims have been criminalised as "evil" and a "fifth column" enemy within by media, politicians, the security services and the criminal justice system. Although constituted by disparate ethnic groups, the targeted communities in each of these nations have experienced similar treatment in the State's anti-terrorist measures, as well as ideological responses and everyday racism, making comparable the two cases.