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.

Imprisoning rationalities

Imprisonment is a growth industry in Australia. Over the past 30–40 years all state and territory jurisdictions have registered massive rises in both the absolute numbers of those imprisoned and the per capita use of imprisonment as a tool of punishment and control. Yet over this period there has been surprisingly little criminological attention to the national picture of imprisonment in Australia and to understanding jurisdictional variation, change and continuity in broader theoretical terms. This article reports initial findings from the Australian Prisons Project, a multi-investigator Australian Research Council funded project intended to trace penal developments in Australia since about 1970. The article begins by outlining the notion of penal culture that provides the analytic lens for the project. It outlines various intersecting areas of study being undertaken before focusing on just three features of the contemporary penal field – restrictions upon presumptions of bail, the rise of post-sentence indefinite detention and the role of supermax confinement. Each in their own way exemplifies an aspect of and contributes to what we conclude to be the revalorization of the prison in Australian culture and society.

Prisoners as Citizens

As prison populations continue to expand across the western world the question of the rights of prisoners has become an increasingly pressing issue, particularly in the light of new human rights discourses. This important new book gives voice to a diverse range of viewpoints arising out of this debate in the Australian context, while the issues raised will have powerful echoes elsewhere. The contributors to this book include the prisoners themselves, human rights activists, academics, criminal justice policy makers and practitioners. Overall the book presents a powerful argument that prisoners do and should have rights in any society that professes to be a democracy, bringing to the fore a debate that society would often prefer to forget.

Monitoring substance use in prisons: Assessing the potential value of wastewater analysis

Prison substance use is a major concern for prison authorities and the wider community. Australia has responded to this problem by implementing the National Corrections Drug Strategy. Across Australia, the true extent of prison substance use cannot be determined. As a result, the effectiveness of the interventions employed as part of this strategy cannot be properly assessed. This has important implications for the allocation of corrective services resources and future policy development. This article explores the benefits and limitations, as well as the ethical and practical issues in using wastewater analysis (WWA) to measure levels of substance use in prisons. It reports results from the first application of WWA to an Australian prison, which supports the use of WWA in this context. Given the increasing concern for prescription misuse in prisons, we also highlight the novel use of WWA to measure the extent of prescription misuse by prisoners. The article concludes that as a result of its objectivity, sensitivity and cost-effectiveness, the use of WWA in prisons warrants further consideration in Australia.

Vulnerability criminalised: Transgender people in prisons

Purpose of this paper: International research identifies transgender people as a vulnerable group in prison systems, with basic needs often being denied. This paper outlines Australian contexts of incarceration, and links between institutional responses and the vulnerabilisation of transgender prisoners. Design/methodology/approach: The paper critically analyses Australian prison policies regarding the treatment of transgender prisoners. Findings: The policy analysis illustrates the links between institutional practices and the increased vulnerability of transgender prisoners. The paper argues that policies further criminalise, and potentially doubly punish, transgender prisoners. Research limitations/implications: This paper analyses the publicly available policies on regulating transgender people’s imprisonment. Given the limited Australian research into transgender prisoner’s lived experiences, there is a gap in relation to policies, their perception, and how corrective services personnel enact the limited procedures available to them in managing transgender prisoners. Practical Implications: Current policies and practices significantly enhance the vulnerability of transgender prisoners. This policy analysis highlights the critical importance of policy and practice reform in relation to housing, safety, health and welfare services, and misgendering. What is the original/value of paper: The policy analysis provides practitioners with an outline of critical issues that arise when transgender people are imprisoned and suggests key areas for future research.