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’.

Getting lost in the field : the unpredictable nature of fieldwork with young people

This chapter focuses on the unpredictable nature of fieldwork with young offenders, specifically with those in a marginalised context. We begin by recounting our experiences working with young people who have had contact with criminal justice processes, particularly those who are the subject of extreme levels of official social control. We then turn to a discussion of the challenges associated with the unpredictable nature of fieldwork, specifically the difficulties associated with negotiating access with gatekeepers and negotiating with young people. We also discuss specific challenges with the research ethics governance of ethically sensitive research in this context (e.g. interviewing young people about offending behaviour). Finally, we recount our experiences in working these young people, with a focus on ‘the grunt’: that is, drawing out young peoples’ stories in interviews. We conclude with some reflections on the need to develop systematic instruction in qualitative work in this specific context.

Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian Contexts

This article surveys literature bearing on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders, with a particular focus on comparing different approaches to dealing with the issue in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about the “punitive turn” in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. Our findings suggest that there are significant differences in the manner and extent to which Australia and Canada have invoked parental responsibility laws and policies as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. We conclude by speculating on some of the reasons for these differences and establishing an agenda for additional needed cross-jurisdictional research. In particular, we argue that it would be fruitful to undertake a cross-jurisdictional study that examines the development and effects of parental responsibility laws across a larger number of different Western countries as well as across individual states and provinces within these national jurisdictions.

“Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent” : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian contexts

In this article we survey relevant international literature on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders. In addition, as a starting point for needed cross-jurisdictional research, we focus on different approaches that have been taken to making parents responsible for youth crime in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about parental responsibility, the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. One unexpected finding of our literature survey is the relatively sparse attention given to the issue of parental responsibility for youth crime in legal and criminological literature compared to the attention it receives in the media and popular-public culture. In Part I we examine the different views that have been articulated in the social science literature for and against parental responsibility laws, along with arguments that have been made about why such laws have been enacted in an increasing number of Western countries in recent years. In Part II, we situate our comparative study of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches within a broader discussion of arguments about the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. In Part III, we identify and examine the scope of different parental responsibility laws that have been enacted in Australia and Canada; noting significant differences in the manner and extent to which parental responsibility laws and policies have been invoked as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. In our concluding discussion, in Part IV, we try to speculate on some of the reasons for these differences and set an agenda for needed future research on the topic.

Juvenile justice in Queensland and Canada : new legislation reflecting new directions

Due to their similar colonial histories and common law heritage, Australia and Canada provide an ideal comparative context for examining legislation reflecting new directions in the field of juvenile justice. Toward this end, this article compares the revised juvenile justice legislation which came into force in Queensland and Canada in 2003 (Canada, Youth Criminal Justice Act, enacted on 19 February 2002 and proclaimed in force 1 April 2003; Queensland, Juvenile Justice Act, amended 2003). There are a series of questions that could be addressed including: How similar and how sweeping have been the legislative changes introduced in each jurisdiction?; What are likely to be some of the effects of the implementation of these new legislative regimes?; and, how well does the legislation enacted in either jurisdiction address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children who have been caught up in juvenile justice systems? This article addresses mainly the first of these questions, offering a systematic comparison of recent Queensland and Canadian legislative changes. Although, due to the recentness of these changes, there is no data available to assess long-term effects, anecdotal evidence and preliminary research findings from our comparative study are offered to provide a start at answering the second question. We also offer critical yet sympathetic comments on the ability of legislation to address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children caught up in juvenile justice systems. Specifically, we conclude that while more than simple legislative responses are required to address the difficulties faced by youth offenders, and especially overrepresented Indigenous young offenders, the amended Queensland and new Canadian legislation appear to provide some needed reforms that can be used to help address some of these fundamental difficulties.

The politicization of youth crime in Scotland and the rise of the 'Burberry Court'

In 2003, the youth justice system in Scotland entered a new phase with the introduction of a pilot youth court. The processing of persistent 16 and 17 year old (and serious 15 year olds) represented a stark deviation from a ‘child centred’ and needs-oriented state apparatus for dealing with young offenders to one based on deeds and individual responsibility. This article, based on an evaluation funded by the Scottish Executive, is the first to provide a critical appraisal of this youth justice reform. It examines the views of the judiciary and young offenders and reveals that the pilot youth court in Scotland represents a punitive excursion that poses serious concerns for due process, human rights and net widening.

Alternatives to youth imprisonment : evaluating the Victorian youth attendance order

On 22 June 1988 the then Minister for Community Services Victoria, Race Matthews, officially launched the Youth Attendance Order (YAO), a high tariff alternative for young offenders aged between 15 and 18 years who were facing a term of detention. Throughout the order's gestation, much debate occurred about the impact it would have on rates of juvenile incarceration as well as about the potential ‘net widening’ effect it could have on less serious offenders. In May 1994 the National Centre For Socio-Legal Studies at La Trobe University submitted its report evaluating the Victorian Youth Attendance Order. This article presents some of the major findings of that report and examines the future options for this high tariff order in juvenile justice

Evaluation of the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court Pilot

A pilot Youth Court was introduced at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Its objectives were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. An evaluation of the pilot commissioned by the Scottish Executive found that it appeared in many respects to be working well. It was a tightly run court that dealt with a heavy volume of business. With its fast track procedures and additional resources it was regarded as a model to be aspired to in all summary court business. Whether a dedicated Youth Court was required or whether procedural improvements would have been possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was, however, more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Court should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Court was intended to avoid the risk of net-widening and its consequences for young people.

Evaluation of the Hamilton Youth Court Pilot 2003-2005

Pilot Youth Courts were introduced at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003 and at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Although introduced as one of a number of measures aimed at responding more effectively to youth crime (including young people dealt with through the Children’s Hearings System), the Youth Courts were intended for young people who would otherwise have been dealt with in the adult Sheriff Summary Court. The objectives of the pilot Youth Courts were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. Evaluation of the Hamilton and Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court pilots suggested that they had been successful in meeting the objectives set for them by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. Both were tightly run courts that dealt with a heavy volume of business. The particular strengths of the Youth Court model over previous arrangements included the fast-tracking of young people to and through the court, the reduction in trials, the availability of a wider range of resources and services for young people and ongoing judicial review. The successful operation of the pilot Youth Courts was dependent upon effective teamwork among the relevant agencies and professionals concerned. Good information sharing, liaison and communication appeared to exist across agencies and the procedures that were in place to facilitate the sharing of information seemed to be working well. This was also facilitated by the presence of dedicated staff within agencies, resulting in clear channels of communication, and in the opportunity provided by the multi-agency Implementation Groups to identify and address operational issues on an ongoing basis. However, whether Youth Courts are required in Scotland or whether procedural improvement were possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Courts should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Courts were intended. This suggested the need for further discussion of Youth Court targeting and its potential consequences among the various agencies concerned.

Submission to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee - Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

This submission addresses the Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 which has as its objectives (1) the introduction of a Boot Camp Order as an option instead of detention for young offenders and (2) the removal of the option of court referred youth justice conferencing for young offenders. As members of the QUT Faculty of Law Centre for Crime and Justice we welcome the invitation to participate in the discussion of these issues which are critically important to the Queensland community at large but especially to our young people.

Re-imagining youth justice

Persistent high levels of recidivism among young offenders (Luke and Lind 2002; Weatherburn et al. 2012) and the over‐representation of Indigenous young people (Cunneen and White 2011; Snowball 2008; Tauri 2012) have long been features of youth justice in Australia. Other problems – such as the increased rates of young people committing sex offences (Dwyer 2011; O’Brien 2010), increasing numbers of young people criminalised for new offences such as ‘sexting’ (Lee and McGovern 2013), and increasing numbers of young female offenders being drawn into youth justice systems (Carrington 2006; Carrington and Pereira 2009) – have emerged more recently. In this paper, we draw on the concept of ‘imaginary penalities’ (Carlen 2010) to argue these chronic problems are partly informed by ‘imaginary’ understandings of how and why young people (re)offend; reflect ‘imaginary’ understandings of what works to address young people’s (re)offending; and reflect ‘imaginary’ ideals about the primary purposes of the youth justice system. We acknowledge up front that answers to these questions require a great deal of new empirical research. This paper is only a beginning that sets out exactly what such an ambitious project might look like.

Scared straight : boot camps for Queensland

The Liberal National Party (‘LNP’) ‘tough on youth crime’ policy mantra was well publicised in the months leading up to the 2012 Queensland state election. 1 Boot camp trials were espoused as a quick-fix panacea — a way of addressing youth offending. The idea was particularly favoured in the far northern regions of the state. In line with the new government’s policy, the Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 (Qld) (‘the Bill’) had a speedy passage through the unicameral Queensland parliament. It was introduced on 1 November 2012, scrutinised by the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee (‘LACSC’) which sought community feedback, and reported back to Parliament within the given timeframe of three weeks. The Bill received assent early December and the provisions commenced in January 2013. This article examines the legislative changes implemented in Queensland. It analyses the issues prompting the amendments such as the perception that parts of Queensland were in the grip of a ‘soaring juvenile crime rate’, the conservative government’s ‘tough stance’ policy towards youth offending, and the transfer of youth justice ‘solutions’ such as ‘boot camps’ among jurisdictions. The article assesses the evidence base for boot camp orders as an option in sentencing young offenders and concludes by raising serious concerns about pursuing such a narrow hardline approach to youth justice.

Evaluation of Indigenous justice programs.: final report / Project D, Safe Aboriginal Youth Patrol Programs in New South Wales and Northbridge Policy and Juvenile Aid Group in Western Australia

The Australian Government has provided funding to evaluate the effectiveness of Indigenous law and justice programs across five subject areas to identify the best approaches to tackling crime and justice issues and better inform government funding decisions in the future. This report presents the findings of subject area "D", which examined two different approaches to delivering community and night patrol services for young people: the Safe Aboriginal Youth Patrol programs in New South Wales, and the Northbridge Policy project (the Young People in Northbridge project), in Western Australia. Night patrols can address crime either directly or indirectly, by prevention work or by addressing the social causes of crime through community development.