Central Approaches Underpinning The Youth Justice System

The relevant legislation that has been implemented, (Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987), has addressed issues that young people face. However, rights for young people still need to be addressed. Doli Incapax, The Children’s Court and Legal are measures taken to protect young offenders in regards to the criminal justice system. Ensuring that the child’s rights are protected there have been legislations passed to guarantee the enforceability of this alternative methods. Young people are treated differently to adults in the criminal justice system for three major reasons. They are; they prevent children and young people from being exploited, protect them from making uniformed decisions and protect others from being disadvantaged by dealing with a person that is a

Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how

It has been one hundred years since the creation of the juvenile court in the United States. The court and the juvenile justice system has made some positive changes in the lives of millions of young people lives over the course or those years, within the last thirteen years there has been some daunting challenges in the system.

The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.

Young people have been a main focus in society. Since 1960 there has been an increase in youth crime which is the reason as to why there are major adult concerns (Newburn, 2013). “Government became more harsh and intrusive in dealing with young people who were seen to be a problem” (France, 2007, pg.19). Older generations perceive young people as having less morals and respect in comparison to what they did at their age (Newburn, 2013). In particular, society views the youth of today as troublemakers, lazy, untrustworthy and unreliable. There are different theories that provide an explanation between involvement in offending and different factors such as family factors and wider social factors which will be discussed below.

This essay will look to explore and discuss the minimum age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales and see if the minimum age should be brought into line with the rest of Europe or not. The first thing to look at is the current age of criminal responsibility which is set at 10 years of age. (https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility). Looking at the law, the age of 10 seems to have been chosen on numerical grounds and belief that crime becomes too popular at the age of eleven. This was despite recommendation from the penal reform international which argued that children under 12 should not be punished and the age should be increased, with a potential rise to fourteen. (http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/justice-for-children-briefing-4-v6-web_0.pdf). In recent years the boldness and humour towards young offenders is high, due to an extensive public awareness of growth around youth crime and the death of James Bulger by Robert Thompson and Jon Venable, who were 10 at the time of the killing.

By addressing these conditions it will help underprivileged youth avoid criminal intervention, punishment, poverty and inequality. The second principle involves re-engaging the ‘social’; this involves supporting social institutions such as schools, recreational services and employment initiatives. This approach advocates for the incorporation of community agencies to meet the youth’s specific needs in order to produce a decriminalizing affect. The third basis focuses on increasing the use of diversion practices rather than involving the formal justice system. This approach has been proven to be an affective strategy for crime prevention as the justice system has a criminalizing affect. The fourth principle involves using child-appropriate sentencing when extrajudicial sentencing is unavoidable. This means that the severity of their punishment needs to be proportionate to the offence and should provide the most beneficial outcome for the youth. The fifth basis involves the destruction of ineffective or right infringing practices. These can involve a variety of practices, which can include, unnecessary early intervention and child imprisonment. Additionally, this principle also focuses on the social and conceptual origins in order to engage with social harms. This ultimately relates back to the importance of understanding structural concepts such as class, race, and gender. The last and sixth principle is to depoliticize

“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The

The subject’s discussions on the welfare versus the punishment-oriented approach have given me the ability to critically examine the different criminal justice responses on various groups of youth, and identify the disadvantages and advantages of each response. Through learning about the systemic problems, I have become more aware of the marginalised conditions of certain young people and understand why the rehabilitation approach might work better than traditional punitive measures. I also learnt that due to the complexities surrounding different groups of youth, there are no quick fix responses to deter young people from

Young people represent the future of society. Consequently, they deserve respect and support while they develop in order to maintain a fair and just society. Therefore, it is the juvenile justice system’s responsibility to establish institutions and legislation to protect the important role that young people play in society. The system should also be driven by welfare and justice concerns as young people have special needs in regards to their age, and their physical, emotional and social development. It is essential that these welfare and justice concerns are addressed effectively by the system in order for young people to flourish. This essay will firstly assess the NSW juvenile justice system in regards to its treatment of young offenders in detention, in conjunction with its obligations under domestic and international law. Additionally, this essay will analyse evidence of welfare and justice concerns for youth offenders in detention in NSW. And furthermore, this essay will analyse the implications of youth detention on young offender’s and society. And ultimately argue that the NSW contemporary juvenile justice system is not driven by welfare and justice concerns. Given the fact that NSW has the highest rate of youth detention in Australia, and that there is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that youth detention carries detrimental physical and psychological consequences. Furthermore, the NSW juvenile justice system is not upholding the fact that young people

A punishment is the infliction of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon an individual or group because they have done wrong. Punishments are administered with the notion that a ‘wrongdoing’ can be corrected (Frase, 2011). Throughout the 17 and 18th century the legal system in Britain was incredibly harsh, disposing death penalties for often minor offences, the intention of this was general deterrence to discourage individuals from committing crime. There were great structural insufficiencies in the justice system and due to it being so punitive, juries were hesitant in finding people guilty of offences (Bentley, 1998). This era became known as ‘The Bloody Code’. During ‘The Bloody Code’, prison ships were introduced to separate young people from adults. They were criticised for their

This essay aims to make clear the system of restorative justice and its aims towards youth offending, whilst arguing points for and against the current system and whether or not it is more appropriate in terms of dealing with youth offending. It will also define restorative justice as well as defining what is meant by conventional justice. Making clear how and why these two systems came to be a part of youth justice whilst concluding as to which if either is more appropriate in dealing with youth offending behaviour.

This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.

Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).

The federal government of Canada fifteen years ago, in 1984, the Liberal party changed the Juvenile Delinquents Acts to the Youth Offenders Act to have a “More human approach to the rights of young people before the law”(Leschild and Jaffe, 8:1991). In the present such as Premier, Mike Harris, of Ontario wants the federal government of Canada to scrap the Young Offenders Act. In 1999, the same party that came up with the act is making majors changes to the act. This report will look at the young offenders act at the present time, look at why kids commit crime, what is being done to improve the act, what has the province done towards teenagers and also a look at the United Sates youth system.