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.

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?

Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act [microform] : runaway and homeless youth : hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, second session on H.R. 1801, hearing held in Washington, DC, January 29, 1988.

"Serial no. 100-72."

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: 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.

Repairing the rupture : restorative justice and the rehabilitation of offenders

Restorative justice is a social justice movement that aims to deal with consequences of crime through repairing and restoring relationships of three key stakeholders: victims, offenders, and communities. Unfortunately, it is often unclear where offender rehabilitation fits within the constructs of repair and reintegration that drive this justice paradigm. An analysis of the relationship between restorative justice theory and offender rehabilitation principles reveals tensions between the two normative frameworks and a lack of appreciation that correctional treatment programs have a legitimate role alongside restorative practices. First, we outline the basic tenets of the Risk–Need–Responsivity Model and the Good Lives Model in order to provide a brief overview of two recent models of offender rehabilitation. We then consider the claims made by restorative justice proponents about correctional rehabilitation programs and their role in the criminal justice system. We conclude that restorative justice and rehabilitation models are distinct, although overlapping, normative frameworks and have different domains of application in the criminal justice system, and that it is a mistake to attempt to blend them in any robust sense.

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.

Program announcement : diversion of youth from the juvenile justice system.

Item 717

2007-2008 Juvenile Court Services School Liaison Program Data, July 2008

Data are provided to CJJP through statistical summary forms completed by the JCSLs. Because forms are completed only when meaningful contact between a student and a liaison takes place, only a portion of the total population served is reported. Meaningful contact is defined as having at least five contacts within a 60-day period (at any point during the academic year) regarding at least one of the referral reasons supplied on the form. Data are entered into a web-based application by the liaisons and retrieved electronically by CJJP via the internet. Service information is submitted and uploaded only at the end of the academic year.

2010-2011 Juvenile Court Services School Liaison Program Data, July 2011

Data are provided to CJJP through statistical summary forms completed by the JCSLs. Because forms are completed only when meaningful contact between a student and a liaison takes place, only a portion of the total population served is reported. Meaningful contact is defined as having at least five contacts within a 60-day period (at any point during the academic year) regarding at least one of the referral reasons supplied on the form. Data are entered into a web-based application by the liaisons and retrieved electronically by CJJP via the internet. Service information is submitted and uploaded only at the end of the academic year.

2012-2013 Juvenile Court Services School Liaison Program Data, July 2013

Data are provided to CJJP through statistical summary forms completed by the JCSLs. Because forms are completed only when meaningful contact between a student and a liaison takes place, only a portion of the total population served is reported. Meaningful contact is defined as having at least five contacts within a 60-day period (at any point during the academic year) regarding at least one of the referral reasons supplied on the form. Data are entered into a web-based application by the liaisons and retrieved electronically by CJJP via the internet. Service information is submitted and uploaded only at the end of the academic year.

Juvenile Waivers to Adult Court: A Review of Outcomes for Youth, March 2011

This study followed four cohorts of youth in an effort to determine the impact of waiving youth from the juvenile courts to the adult justice system. The four cohorts included a group of youth who were automatically processed in the adult system due to the severity of the charges against them, a group waived to the adult system after starting in the juvenile court, a group returned to the juvenile court after having initially been waived to the adult system, and a group of “youthful offenders” who started supervision in the juvenile court with the option of moving into the adult system upon reaching age 18.

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.

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'.