Juvenile justice and truancy legislation : The move towards parental responsibilisation in Queensland

Much current Queensland media rhetoric, government policy and legislation on truancy and youth justice appears to be based on ideas of responsibilisation – of sheeting responsibility for children’s behaviour back onto their parents. This article examines the evidence of parental responsibility provisions in juvenile justice and truancy legislation in Queensland and the drivers behind this approach. It considers recent legislative initiatives as part of an international trend toward making parents ‘responsible’ for the wrongs of their children. It identifies the parental responsibility rhetoric appearing in recent ministerial statements and associated media reports. It then asks the questions – are these legislative provisions being enforced? And if so, are they successful? Are they simply adding to the administrative burdens placed on teachers and schools, and the socioeconomic burdens placed on already disadvantaged parents? Parental responsibility provisions have been discussed at length in the context of juvenile offending and research suggests that punishing parents for the acts of their children does not decrease delinquency. The paper asks how, as a society, we intend to evaluate these punitive measures against parents?

The Punitive Turn in Juvenile Justice: Cultures of Control and Rights of Compliance in Western Europe and the USA

Separate systems of justice for children and young people have always been beset by issues of contradiction and compromise. There is compelling evidence that such ambiguity is currently being `resolved' by a greater governmental resort to neo-conservative punitive and correctional interventions and a neo-liberal responsibilizing mentality in which the protection historically afforded to children is rapidly dissolving. This resurgent authoritarianism appears all the more anachronistic when it is set against the widely held commitment to act within the guidelines established by various children's rights conventions. Of note is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, frequently described as the most ratified human rights convention in the world, but lamentably also the most violated. Based on international research on juvenile custody rates and children's rights compliance in the USA and Western Europe, this article examines why and to what extent `American exceptionalism' might be permeating European nation states.

Submission to the Queensland Department of Communities Review of the Juvenile Justices Act 1992 Issues Paper 2007

This submission addresses the Queensland Government’s Department of Communities Issues Paper regarding the Review of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (August 2007). The Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Law has a Criminal Justice Program within the Law and Justice Research Centre. The members of this Program wish to participate in the debate on these issues which are critically important to the Queensland community at large but especially to our young people.

Physical performance profile of sub-elite juvenile Gaelic Games players and the prevalence of a Relative Age Effect (RAE)

Gaelic Games are the indigenous sports played in Ireland, the most popular being Gaelic football and hurling. The games are contact sports and the physical demands are thought to be similar to those of Australian Rules football, rugby union, rugby league, field hockey, and lacrosse (Delahunt et al., 2011). The difference in chronological age between children in a single age group is known as relative age and its consequences as the RAE, whereby younger players are disadvantaged (Del Campo et al., 2010). The purpose of this study was to describe the physical and performance profile of sub-elite juvenile Gaelic Games players and to establish if a RAE is present in this cohort and any influence physiological moderator variables may have on this. Following receipt of ethical approval (EHSREC11-45), six sub-elite county development squads (Under-14/15/16 age groups, male, n=115) volunteered to partake in the study. Anthropometric data including skin folds and girths were collected. A number of field tests of physical performance including 5 and 20m speed, vertical and broad jump distance, and an estimate of VO2max were carried out. Descriptive data are presented as Mean SD. Juvenile sub-elite Gaelic Games players aged 14.53 0.82 y were 172.87 7.63 cm tall, had a mass of 64.74 11.06 kg, a BMI of 21.57 2.82 kg.m-2 and 9.22 4.78 % body fat. Flexibility, measured by sit and reach was 33.62 6.86 cm and lower limb power measured by vertical and broad jump were 42.19 5.73 and 191.16 25.26 cm, respectively. Participant time to complete 5m, 20m and an agility test (T-Test) was 1.12 0.07, 3.31 0.30 and 9.31 0.55 s respectively. Participant’s estimated VO2max was 48.23 5.05 ml.kg.min-1. Chi-Square analysis of birth month by quartile (Q1 = January-March) revealed that a RAE was present in this cohort, whereby an over-representation of players born in Q1 compared with Q2, Q3 and Q4 was evident (2 = 14.078, df = 3, p = 0.003). Kruskal-Wallis analysis of the data revealed no significant difference in any of the performance parameters based on quartile of birth (Alpha level = 0.05).This study provides a physical performance profile of juvenile sub-elite Gaelic Games players, comparable with those of other sports such as soccer and rugby. This novel data can inform us of the physical requirements of the sport. The evidence of a RAE is similar to that observed in other contact sports such as soccer and rugby league (Carling et al, 2009; Till et al, 2010). Although a RAE exists in this cohort, this cannot be explained by any physical/physiological moderator variables. Carling C et al. (2009). Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sport 19, 3-9. Delahunt E et al. (2011). Journal of Athletic Training 46, 241-5. Del Campo DG et al. (2010). Journal of Sport Science and Medicine 9, 190-198. Delorme N et al. (2010). European Journal of Sport Science 10, 91-96. Till K et al. (2010). Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 20, 320-329.

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.

Trends in juvenile detention in Australia

This paper provides an overview of key trends in juvenile detention in Australia, based on data contained in the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC’s) Juveniles in Detention in Australia Monitoring Program database and then provides a discussion of two key trends in juvenile detention—the national increase in the proportion of juvenile detainees that is remanded (rather than sentenced) and the increase in the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention.

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'.

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.