2013 Massachusetts Family Impact Seminar: Youth at Risk, Part 2

The youth of Massachusetts are of primary concern to legislators and citizens. This briefing report features three essays by experts — Fern Johnson, Deborah Frank, and Donna Haig Friedman — who focus on three aspects of children in need: children in foster care who need adoption, children who are hungry, and children who are homeless. Each report has further and more detailed suggestions for helping these children in need; below is a summary of the problems we face.

CHRI user's manual : criminal history record information /

This guide provides examples of juvenile and adult arrest fingerprint cards with instructions and additional record forms.

The true principle of education : the law of nature, the law of mental development : a new view of the end of juvenile culture, especially as regards the female mind /

Mode of access: Internet.

Juvenile delinquency and the law /

"First published 1945"

Juvenile correctional reform in Massachusetts : a preliminary report of the Center for Criminal Justice of the Harvard Law School /

Includes bibliographical references.

Law of juvenile delinquency.

Mode of access: Internet.

Safeguarding rural Australia : addressing masculinity and violence in rural settings. Data report no. 5. Consequences of violence - juvenile offenders, long-term health consequences, anxiety and repression, other chronic disabilities

This report considers extant data which have been sourced with respect to some of the consequences of violent acts and incidents and risky behaviour for males living in regional and remote Australia . This has been collated and presented under the headings: juvenile offenders; long-term health consequences; anxiety and repression; and other chronic disabilities. Additional commentary resulting from exploration, examination and analyses of secondary data is published online in complementary reports in this series.

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.

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?

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.

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.