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?

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.

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'.

Juvenile justice: Youth and crime in Australia [Fifth Edition]

Juvenile Justice 5th edition explores youth and crime in Australia, and the institutions and agencies associated with the administration of juvenile justice. It provides an accessible introduction to the main concepts and issues of juvenile justice and critically analyses the principles, policies and practices associated with it. The book provides clear information across a broad range of areas, and raises a number of questions about the institutions of juvenile justice and how we think about issues of juvenile justice.

The United Nations and juvenile justice: An overview

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the various United Nations instruments relevant to juvenile justice and to examine how knowledge of these can assist those interested in the protection and enhancement of young people's rights in the justice system. It is argued that whilst these instruments are variable they are valuable tools for unmasking the discriminatory and unjust treatment of young people who come into contact with the justice system.

Juvenile Justice System Planning Data Iowa’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Council Three Year Comprehensive Plan with Additional Juvenile Justice System Information, November 2015

This report provides key juvenile justice system planning data, most of which are taken from Iowa’s 2015 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Three Year Plan. The data and related descriptions serve as an overview of decision making for major juvenile justice system processing points, and also assist state and local officials with policy and practice. Included in the report are school discipline data and data related to juvenile in the adult criminal justice system.

An exploration of the cases referred to victim-offender mediation within the framework of the juvenile justice system

Ce mémoire de maîtrise cherche à jeter un regard approfondi sur les cas des jeunes contrevenants référés au processus de médiation à Trajet, un organisme de justice alternative à Montréal. Plus précisément, les objectifs sont de décrire les caractéristiques des cas référés, d’explorer leur relation avec la participation au processus de médiation et avec le résultat de celui-ci, et de comparer ces mêmes éléments en regard de deux périodes inclues dans le projet : celle où s’appliquait la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants et celle où la Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents assortie de l’Entente cadre sont entrés en vigueur. Des méthodes de recherche quantitatives ont été utilisées pour analyser les cas référés à Trajet sur une période de 10 ans (1999-2009). Des analyses descriptives ont permis d’établir les caractéristiques communes ou divergentes entre les cas référés à Trajet et ceux référés à d’autres programmes de médiation. Des analyses bi-variées ont révélé qu’une relation significative existait entre la participation au processus de médiation et l’âge et le sexe des contrevenants, le nombre de crimes commis par ceux-ci, le nombre de victimes impliquées, le type de victime, l’âge et le sexe des victimes et, le délai entre la commission du crime et le transfert du dossier à Trajet. La réalisation d’une régression logistique a révélé que trois caractéristiques prédisent de manière significative la participation à la médiation : l’âge des contrevenants, le nombre de victimes impliquées et le délai entre la commission du crime et le transfert du dossier à Trajet. La faible proportion d’échecs du processus de médiation a rendu inutile la réalisation d’analyses bi et multi-variées eu égard au résultat du processus de médiation. Des différences significatives ont été trouvées entre les cas référés en médiation sous la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants et ceux référés sous la Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents assortie à l’Entente cadre en ce qui a trait au type de crime, au nombre de délits commis, à l’existence d’une référence précédente à Trajet, aux raisons pour lesquelles la médiation n’a pas eu lieu, à la restitution sous toutes ces formes et, plus spécialement, la restitution financière. La participation à la médiation est apparue plus probable sous la LSJPA que sous la LJC. Des corrélations partielles ont montré que différentes caractéristiques étaient associées à la participation à la médiation dans les deux périodes en question. Seule une caractéristique, le sexe des victimes, s’est avérée reliée significativement à la participation à la médiation tant sous la LJC que sous la LSJPA. Les résultats de ce projet ont donné lieu à une connaissance plus approfondie des cas référés à Trajet pour un processus de médiation et à une exploration de l’impact que la LSJPA et l’Entente cadre sur ce processus. Toutefois, l’échantillon étant limité au cas traités à Trajet ne permet pas la généralisation de ces résultats à l’ensemble des cas référés aux organismes de justice alternative du Québec pour le processus de médiation.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence, juvenile justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child : do they coexist?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides children and young people with over 40 substantive rights, the five outcomes of which are living a healthy lifestyle, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution, and economic wellbeing. Moreover, Article 3 dictates that all organizations concerned with children should work towards what is best of each child. It is not clear how these rights translate to the care of children and young people who come before the courts (particularly those who are subsequently incarcerated). A review of the literature suggests that while best practice guidelines for the treatment and rehabilitation of adult offenders has moved forward, there is little consensus about how this might be achieved for young people. Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) needs to extend beyond its current considerations of the rights of children and young people, and to expand its focus to the extent to which international human rights standards are complied with in the cases of juveniles in the criminal justice system. This presentation will (a) explore the extent to which current practices in juvenile justice are consistent with the UN's Convention and (b) whether the adoption a rehabilitative and treatment approach based on a TJ framework might serve to improve outcomes for young people and ensure their rights are not being violated.

The emergence and development of specialist courts : lessons for juvenile justice from the history of the children’s court in South Australia?

To illustrate how specialist courts have developed to manage juvenile offenders, this paper provides an overview of the history and development of the youth court in one jurisdiction, South Australia. Drawing on interviews conducted with judicial officers, the paper seeks to highlight some of the changes that have taken place since the Court’s inception, as well as how the Court currently understands its role and positioning within the broader justice and welfare systems. Key discussion points of these interviews included the Youth Court’s guiding principles and how they impact on court procedures and responses to young people in the system, as well as the challenges that limit, or create difficulties for, the effective operation of the Youth Court. It is concluded that the Youth Court system attempts to balance both welfare and justice approaches to dealing with young people, but are sometimes hindered by inadequate procedural, structural and resource-related factors – some of which exist externally to the Youth Court itself.