Submission : Proposed reforms to youth justice in Queensland

The proposed reforms to the youth justice system in Queensland are premised on the assumption that offending by young people is increasing. We noted (Carrington, Dwyer, Hutchinson and Richards 2012, 8) in a recent submission about the boot camps legislation that: "Statistics suggest that this concern is not warranted. Certainly studies show that ‘rates per 100,000 juveniles in detention in Queensland have been relatively stable compared with the national trend’ (Richards 2011) and that rates of detention of child offenders have declined generally in Australia over the last three decades. Youth offending statistics are affected by the diversion options used by the police, as well as by the numbers and levels of policing, and any special strategies such as Operation Colossus in the northern part of the state. ‘Community concern’ about crime does not always reflect the true rates of crime across Queensland. Policy should be based on valid evidence, not on ‘community concern’. With stable numbers of young people being detained in Australia, the research clearly suggests that youth offending is not escalating."...

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.

Illusions of Difference: Comparative Youth Justice in the Devolved UK

Surprisingly, there has been little or no systematic research to date that has explored the significance of UK devolution for youth justice policy and practice. This article explores the extent of differential justice in the United Kingdom, particularly as it is expressed in the myriad action plans, criminal justice reviews, frameworks for action, delivery plans and offending strategies that have surfaced since 1998. In particular, the article considers how far policy convergence and divergence are reflected through the discourses of risk, welfare, restoration and children's rights in the four administrations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For comparative criminology, the United Kingdom offers a unique opportunity to explore how international and national pressures towards convergence and/or divergence can be challenged, rebranded, versioned, adapted or resisted at sub-national and local levels.

'A slap on the wrist'? The conservative agenda in Queensland, Australia

Recent amendments to youth justice legislation in Queensland include opening Children’s Court proceedings, removing the Principle of Detention as a Last Resort, facilitating transfers of 17 year-old offenders to adult prisons, instigating new bail offences, and introducing mandatory boot camp orders. This article examines the context of these changes including the inadequacies of the public policy process, and the impassioned political rhetoric imbued with simplistic slogans. This is a case study of regressive youth justice policy and the article reflects on the many causes underlying the reactive winding back of reform.

Re-imagining youth justice

Persistent high levels of recidivism among young offenders (Luke and Lind 2002; Weatherburn et al. 2012) and the over‐representation of Indigenous young people (Cunneen and White 2011; Snowball 2008; Tauri 2012) have long been features of youth justice in Australia. Other problems – such as the increased rates of young people committing sex offences (Dwyer 2011; O’Brien 2010), increasing numbers of young people criminalised for new offences such as ‘sexting’ (Lee and McGovern 2013), and increasing numbers of young female offenders being drawn into youth justice systems (Carrington 2006; Carrington and Pereira 2009) – have emerged more recently. In this paper, we draw on the concept of ‘imaginary penalities’ (Carlen 2010) to argue these chronic problems are partly informed by ‘imaginary’ understandings of how and why young people (re)offend; reflect ‘imaginary’ understandings of what works to address young people’s (re)offending; and reflect ‘imaginary’ ideals about the primary purposes of the youth justice system. We acknowledge up front that answers to these questions require a great deal of new empirical research. This paper is only a beginning that sets out exactly what such an ambitious project might look like.

Blurred lines : reconsidering the concept of ‘diversion’ in youth justice systems in Australia

This article revisits ‘diversion’ in the context of youth justice in Australia. Although ‘diversion’ is omnipresent in youth justice, it is rarely subject to critical examination. This article raises four interrelated questions: what young people are to be ‘diverted’ from and to; whether young people are to be ‘diverted’ from the criminal justice system or from offending; whether young people are to be ‘diverted’ from criminal justice processes or outcomes; and whether ‘diversion’ should be considered distinct from crime prevention and early intervention. The article concludes that the confusion about youth ‘diversion’ may foster individualised interventions in young people’s lives.

Rethinking Youth Prostitution: National Provision at the Margins of Child Protection and Youth Justice

In March 2000, the Department of Health and the Home Office issued guidance fundamentally altering policy and practice with regard to young people in prostitution. 1 Instead of being arrested and punished for prostitution-related offences, those under 18 years old were to be thought of as children ‘in need’ and offered welfare-based interventions. The practice that has developed in the last three years has offered interventions that are located within both child protection and youth justice work. This article examines these changes in order to generate insights about the changing nature of youth justice. In particular, it is argued that the drive to manage the risks posed by young people in prostitution to specific organisations, takes precedence over either the desire to care for, or the demand to punish them. Through an analysis of how practitioners and policy makers responsible for implementing this new approach to youth prostitution talk about ‘risk’ and ‘responsibility’, ‘liability’, ‘protection’ and ‘punishment’, the article argues that the contradiction between care and control has been re-interpreted, such that there is noticeable blurring of the boundaries between welfare and punishment at the margins of youth justice work.

Childhood, Rights and Justice in Northern Ireland

Building on primary research and previous publications (Haydon, 2012; Haydon, 2014; Haydon and Scraton, 2008; McAlister, Scraton and Haydon, 2009; Scraton and Haydon, 2002), this chapter will provide a critical analysis of children’s rights and youth justice in Northern Ireland. More broadly, it will consider recent research concerning the criminalisation of children and young people in the United Kingdom and profound concerns regarding the policing and regulation of children raised in successive concluding observations about the UK Government’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1995, 2002, 2008). From this generic context, the chapter will map the ‘particular circumstances’ of Northern Ireland - a discrete legal jurisdiction to which powers for justice and policing were devolved only in 2010. Emerging from four decades of conflict and progressing through an uneasy ‘peace’, rights-based institutions and enabling legislation have, in principle, promoted and protected human rights. Yet children and young people living in communities marginalised by poverty and the legacy of conflict continue to experience inconsistent formal regulation by the police and the criminal justice system, while enduring often brutal informal regulation by paramilitaries. The chapter will explore evident tensions between the dynamics of criminalisation and promotion/ protection of children’s rights in a society transitioning from conflict. Further, it will analyse the challenges to securing children’s rights principles and provisions within a hostile political and ideological context, arguing for a critical rights-based agenda that promotes social justice through rights compliance together with policies and practices that address the structural inequalities faced by children and young people.

Experiencing Youth Justice and Penality

Much of the recent literature on youth justice has focused on administrative aspects of the system and the socio-political contexts that have led to the ‘production’ of the youthful offender as a subject and locus of intervention. This has largely been driven by the extent to which youth justice has been crafted as a distinct penal sphere, evident in its unyoking from universal children’s services (Muncie and Goldson, 2013) and the establishment of separate agencies to administer and govern this ‘system’ (Souhami, 2014). Driven by policy hyperactivity and a plethora of legislation expanding the reach of the system, for much of the 1990s and 2000s increasing numbers of young people were brought under its gaze.

Particular attention has been paid to the impact of neo-liberal governance on the discourses, rationales and philosophies underpinning contemporary youth justice policy and practice. Writing specifically in the English and Welsh context, several authors have identified that the resulting ‘system’ embodies multiple, contradictory and competing discourses (Muncie, 2006; Fergusson, 2007; Gray, 2013). Within this ‘melting pot’ Fergusson (2007) notes the disjuncture between policy rhetoric, implementation and lived experience and Phoenix (2015) argues that systems-based analyses, much in favour amongst academics, foreclose a wider consideration of questions of what ‘justice’ actually means.

Recent attention towards the perspectives of practitioners working in this sphere has pointed to greater nuances than broader penal narratives suggest (see: Field, 2007; Briggs, 2013; Gray, 2013; Kelly and Armitage, 2015). Yet similar attention has not been given to experiences of youth justice (for an exception see – Phoenix and Kelly, 2013). However, it is precisely young people’s experiences, which would add significantly to current knowledge and potentially bridge the gap between discussions about penal philosophies, how youth justice policies are framed, how they are enacted and how they are experienced.

This chapter provides an overview of recent developments in the field of youth justice and penality in the United Kingdom. The chapter argues that a theoretical focus on macro-level trends (Hannah-Moffat and Lynch, 2012), alongside a narrowly defined research agenda, have largely excluded young people’s experiences of justice and punishment from contemporary analysis. Drawing on young people experiences of different aspects of youth justice in Northern Ireland and beyond, the chapter illuminates what a close understanding of lived experience can add to knowledge. In particular it demonstrates that the effects of interventions can be different to their aims and intentions; and that re-instating the youth experience can add support to calls for greater attention to wider issues of social justice.

Making the fun stop : youth justice reform in Queensland

In 2013 the newly elected conservative Liberal National Party government instigated amendments to the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). Boot camps replaced court ordered youth justice conferencing. In 2014 there were more drastic changes, including opening the Children’s Court proceedings to the public, permitting publication of identifying information of repeat offenders, removing the principle of ‘detention as a last resort’, facilitating prompt transferral of 17 year olds to adult prisons and instigating new bail offences and mandatory boot camp orders for recidivist motor vehicle offenders in Townsville. This article compares these amendments to the legislative frameworks in other jurisdictions and current social research. It argues that these amendments are out of step with national and international best practice benchmarks for youth justice. Early indications are that Indigenous children are now experiencing increased rates of unsentenced remand. The article argues that the government’s policy initiatives are resulting in negative outcomes and that early and extensive evaluations of these changes are essential.

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?