Flat-time prison sentences : a proposal for swift, certain, and even-handed justice /

Pamphlet is in a question answer format.

Guide to Illinois parole and release data /

Bibliography: p. 147-160.

Illinois probation intake study /

"July 1996."

Illinois' multiyear strategy to control drug and violent crime, FFY 2004.

In June 2000, the Authority convened a Criminal Justice Planning Assembly in which policy makers, service providers, researchers, practitioners, and elected officials participated. The goals and objectives for the criminal justice system, which came out of the Assembly, were refined in the following months and recommended action steps to address identified priorities were developed. This work resulted in a Criminal Justice Plan for the State of Illinois. A primary purpose of the Plan was the development of a framework for a comprehensive statewide approach to coordinating the allocation and expenditure of all federal and state funds appropriated to the Authority and made available for juvenile and criminal justice purposes. The Plan as well as past funding initiatives, the latest data on drug and violent crime in Illinois, and new criminal justice issues that have arisen in the last several years were taken into account in the development of the strategy. The strategy describes the role that Illinois' Anti-Drug Abuse Act Edward Byrne Memorial Fund award plays in the larger plan for Illinois, coordinating research, policy, and the legislative activities with funding initiatives.

Promising approaches to gangs : a catalogue of prevention and suppression programs in Illinois /

"June 1994."

Report of the Tax Reform Commission, State of Illinois.

"December, 1982."

Shoplifting in Illinois /

"March 1982."

The incidence and prevalence of drug use among adults in Illinois /

Research conducted by the Institute for Juvenile Research from a grant (C7-0069-01) of the Illinois Dangerous Drugs Commission.

The South Carolina Juvenile Collateral Consequences Checklist

Federal and state laws impose a range of collateral consequences that affect the opportunities available to youth involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Children who have pled or have been found guilty of juvenile delinquency offenses face challenges in gaining employment finding housing and accessing educational opportunities. This publication provides a community resource containing the most current information on the short-term and long-term consequences of delinquency adjudications in South Carolina.

Performance Standards for Indigent Defense in Juvenile Cases

Juvenile delinquency proceedings in the South Carolina Family Court are fundamentally different than adult criminal cases. Judges are charged by the South Carolina Code of Laws with acting in the “best interests of the child,” this emphasis on the rehabilitation of the child contrasts with the more punitive model used by the adult criminal justice system. The standards listed in the document aim to provide guidance to appointed counsel in juvenile matters with particular emphasis on the distinctive requirements of the South Carolina juvenile justice system.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

Experiencing Youth Justice: Process, Meaning and Legitimacy

Reform of the youth justice system, including the wide incorporation of restorative justice approaches, was a central component of the Criminal Justice Review (2000). Following the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Assembly, the Youth Justice Review (2011) made a series of recommendations for further reforms. These included proposals for the introduction of a statutory time limit in youth cases to tackle avoidable delay. Strengthening legitimacy and advancing rights-based approaches are key themes underpinning the recommendations of Youth Justice Review (2011). Young people’s views of justice within the system are critical to our understanding of how such aims can be achieved. This presentation is based on findings from a longitudinal qualitative study exploring young people’s experiences of transitions into and from custody in the Juvenile Justice Centre. Using a life-history approach young people’s experiences of justice at various stages of the criminal justice process and in the wider context of their lives is explored. Key issues such as social contexts, legitimacy and perceptions of fairness are highlighted and the implications of this for system reform are critically examined.