“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.

Drawing the line : the legal status and treatment of the 17-year-old accused in Queensland

Seventeen year olds who come into contact with the police in Queensland are classified as adults and are not afforded the protections available under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (YJA). As with any other adult, their offences are dealt with under a raft of legislative provisions including the Criminal Code 1889 (Qld) (the Code), the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA) and the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (PSA). This article argues that this situation is unfair and contravenes international human rights agreements which Australia has ratified, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC). Article 1 of that Convention defines a child as a person under the age of 18. The youth offences legislation in Queensland only applies to those who have not yet turned 17. This article examines the effects of this anomaly in Queensland, focusing in particular on the pre-adjudication treatment of ‘17 year old adults’.

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.

Responsibilisation and Rights: Explorations in Comparative Youth Criminology

Studies of international youth justice, punishment and control are in their infancy but the issues of globalisation, transnationalisation, policy transfer and localisation are gradually being addressed. There also appears a growing demand in policy and pressure group circles in the UK to learn more about other jurisdictions in order to emulate ‘best practice’ and avoid the worst excesses of punitive populism. However, existing comparative work in this area rarely ventures much beyond country specific descriptions of historical development, powers and procedures. Statistical comparisons – predominantly of custody rates – are becoming more sophisticated but remain beset with problems of partial and inaccurate data collection. The extent to which different countries do things differently, and how and why such difference is maintained, remains a relatively unexcavated territory. This article suggests a conceptually comparative framework in which degrees of international, national and local convergence and divergence can begin to be revealed and assessed.

Bail and remand for young people in Australia : a national research project

Funded and endorsed by the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators, this is one of the first national scale research reports into the bail and remand practices for young Australians. A young person can be placed in custody on remand (ie refused bail) after being arrested by police in relation to a suspected criminal offence, before entering a plea, while awaiting trial, during trial or awaiting sentence. Although custodial remand plays an important role in Western criminal justice systems, minimising the unnecessary use of remand is important given the obligations Australia has under several UN instruments to use, as a last resort, youth detention of any kind. This research identifies trends in the use of custodial remand and explores the factors that influence its use for young people nationally and in each of Australia’s jurisdictions.

Beyond the ‘three dogmas of juvenile justice’ : a response to Weatherburn, McGrath and Bartels

In 'Three Dogmas of Juvenile Justice', Weatherburn, McGrath and Bartels identify three 'assumptions' or 'dogmas' about youth justice, on which they claim 'juvenile justice policy in Australia currently rests'.

The relevance and admissibility of prior sexual history with the defendant in sexual offence cases

Kibble, N, ?The Relevance and Admissibility of Prior Sexual History with the Defendant in Sexual Offence Cases? (2001) 32 Cambrian Law Review 27-63 (cited with approval by HL in R v A(2) [2002] AC 45) RAE2008

Revising Justice: Punitory Thought and Action in the Work of Atwood, Jordan, and Oates

*Designated as an exemplary master's project for 2015-16*

Factores explicativos de las actitudes hacia el castigo juvenil. Evidencias de un diseño factorial

El rol desempeñado por la opinión pública en el desarrollo de la política criminal actual justifica el incremento de investigaciones destinadas a evaluar las actitudes de los ciudadanos hacia el castigo. No obstante, los avances en este ámbito han sido limitados debido a la utilización de rudimentarios instrumentos de medida. Por ello, el presente trabajo tiene como propósito explorar el efecto que generan en la opinión ciudadana ciertas variables referidas al hecho delictivo y al infractor, precisando su contribución relativa y la interacción existente entre ellas. Para satisfacer este objetivo se recurrió a un diseño factorial de la encuesta, creando una población de 256 casos-escenario fruto de la combinación de cuatro factores: la edad del joven, su historial delictivo, el grado de implicación en el hecho y el tipo de delito cometido. Los mismos fueron distribuidos en grupos de ocho casos ordenados aleatoriamente y fueron suministrados a 32 sujetos. Posteriormente se aplicaron análisis de regresión logística binaria. Los resultados obtenidos revelan que la naturaleza violenta de los hechos, la implicación activa de los jóvenes y el historial delictivo son predictores importantes de las condenas punitivas. Sin embargo la edad, una variable fundamental en la configuración de la justicia juvenil, no resulta significativa. De este modo, el trabajo muestra el potencial explicativo de este conjunto de factores y debate sus implicaciones teóricas y metodológicas para la investigación futura en este terreno.

‘Transforming justice’: challenges for restorative justice in an era of punishment-based corrections

Scholars of restorative justice have long debated its theoretical relationship with formal criminal justice. This analysis critically examines the range of sociostructural conditions in contemporary society that have halted the spread of restorative policies in practice and prevented them from realizing their transformative potential as an alternative system of justice. These factors are attributed largely to a punitive penal culture that is characterized by policy-making based on penal populism, the governance of risk and a managerialist criminal justice agenda; and the widespread co-optation of restorative programs by the state. This broad argument is explored in the context of two particular case studies – recent developments in youth justice and in sexual offending respectively in England and Wales and elsewhere. This examination ultimately highlights challenges for restorative justice in the current risk-driven penal climate and advocates a need to re-evaluate its relationship with formal state justice.

Justice for Victims before the International Criminal Court

Many prosecutors and commentators have praised the victim provisions at the International Criminal Court (ICC) as 'justice for victims', which for the first time include participation, protection and reparations. This book critically examines the role of victims in international criminal justice, drawing from human rights, victimology, and best practices in transitional justice.

Drawing on field research in Northern Uganda, Luke Moffet explores the nature of international crimes and assesses the role of victims in the proceedings of the ICC, paying particular attention to their recognition, participation, reparations and protection. The book argues that because of the criminal nature and structural limitations of the ICC, justice for victims is symbolic, requiring State Parties to complement the work of the Court to address victims' needs.

In advancing an innovative theory of justice for victims, and in offering solutions to current challenges, the book will be of great interest and use to academics, practitioners and students engaged in victimology, the ICC, transitional justice, or reparations.

Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court: Beyond Rhetoric and the Hague

Justice for victims has often been invoked as the raison d’être of international criminal justice, by punishing perpetrators of international crimes. This article attempts to provide a more holistic account of justice for victims by examining victims’ needs, interests, and rights. The International Criminal Court itself includes participation, protection and reparation for victims, indicating they are important stakeholders. This article also suggests that victims are integral to the purpose of the ICC in ending impunity by ensuring transparency of proceedings. However, there are limits to the resources and capacity of the ICC, which can only investigate and prosecute selected crimes. To overcome this justice gap, this article directs the debate towards a victim-orientated agenda to complementarity, where state parties and the Assembly of State Parties should play a greater role in implementing justice for victims domestically. This victim-orientated complementarity approach can be achieved through new ASP guidelines on complementarity, expanding universal jurisdiction, or seeking enforcement and cooperation through regional and international bodies and courts, such asUniversal Periodic Review or the African Court’s International Criminal Law Section. In the end, ifwe are serious about delivering justice for victims we need to move beyond the rhetoric, with realistic expectations of what the ICC can achieve, and concentrate our attention to what states should bedoing to end impunity.

Childhood, Rights and Justice in Northern Ireland

Building on primary research and previous publications (Haydon, 2012; Haydon, 2014; Haydon and Scraton, 2008; McAlister, Scraton and Haydon, 2009; Scraton and Haydon, 2002), this chapter will provide a critical analysis of children’s rights and youth justice in Northern Ireland. More broadly, it will consider recent research concerning the criminalisation of children and young people in the United Kingdom and profound concerns regarding the policing and regulation of children raised in successive concluding observations about the UK Government’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1995, 2002, 2008). From this generic context, the chapter will map the ‘particular circumstances’ of Northern Ireland - a discrete legal jurisdiction to which powers for justice and policing were devolved only in 2010. Emerging from four decades of conflict and progressing through an uneasy ‘peace’, rights-based institutions and enabling legislation have, in principle, promoted and protected human rights. Yet children and young people living in communities marginalised by poverty and the legacy of conflict continue to experience inconsistent formal regulation by the police and the criminal justice system, while enduring often brutal informal regulation by paramilitaries. The chapter will explore evident tensions between the dynamics of criminalisation and promotion/ protection of children’s rights in a society transitioning from conflict. Further, it will analyse the challenges to securing children’s rights principles and provisions within a hostile political and ideological context, arguing for a critical rights-based agenda that promotes social justice through rights compliance together with policies and practices that address the structural inequalities faced by children and young people.