The Australian criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique strategies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. Even though young offenders commit a higher percentage of crime compared to adults, young offenders also have the highest likelihood to be rehabilitated and change their lifestyle as they mature, resulting in a lower court appearance percentage due to the different rights children have.
Young offenders are recognised under the law to have a different level of responsibility and vulnerability to adult offenders. This creates tension in the community, as when children are not protected in criminal procedures, their rights are not upheld. This is demonstrated in R V Phung and Huynh  NSWSC 115, where the accused was detained without the contact of his guardian of choice for over several hours, was not consulted on whom he preferred as a support person and was not given a lawyer. This creates tension as the child did not receive the criteria assigned under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) and was without a legal representative, defying the fairness of his case. However, the judge deemed the evidence provided from interviews as inadmissible due to his rights being denied. The courts attempt to prevent the tension from the community by using the judge’s discretion in determining what evidence is
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
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.
Doli Incapax however, doesn’t end once a young person reaches the age of 10. From the ages of 10-14 it is a common law presumption that a minor does not possess the necessary knowledge to have a criminal intention. This is known as a rebuttable presumption. This presumption lies in favour of the young person just as if they were under the age of 10, however, the other party can rebut it if they are able to show sufficient evidence to disprove this. This can be done a fair few ways. One of the ways to rebut Doli Incapax is by looking at the young persons criminal record. Previous offences that are linked to the present offence (e.g. robbery and assault) can be used to rebut Doli Incapax. Another way to rebut Doli Incapax is by interviewing the young person. This must be done so however, in the presence of an adult, if it not, the evidence may be inadmissible in court. The interview process will involve a police officer questioning the juvenile about their knowledge of the offence. If the juvenile admits they were aware that the offence was a criminal matter, Doli Incapax is rebutted. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) supports this idea of the age of criminal responsibility and Australia has ratified legislations proposed referring to this idea. The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) lays out the minimum age of criminal responsibility, although there are occasional debates within the public to reduce this age. Doli Incapax is
The reservation of the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC) had played invaluable role in charging the way in which young offenders are dealt with within the Australia Criminal Process. Including the introduction of the theory known as Doli Incapax meaning the age of criminal reasonability, the Young Offender Act 1997 NSW as well new law regarding the rights of a child once they have been arrested. It is evident that these while some of charges are still ineffective in dealing with Young Offenders within the Criminal Justice System the majority of them are in place for the greater good and are assisting young offenders when it relates to the Criminal Justice System.
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.
The court, at the sentencing hearing, shall consider specified factors in determining the appropriate sentence and be given greater discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. This bill extracts details from the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, which entails the cautions when handling the minor in custody and as the minor is released (Illinois General Assembly , 2015). When adolescence potency extended a peak more than 20 years ago, the country lost sureness in its ability to rehabilitate juveniles. Councils passed laws permitting more young offenders to be tried as adults. Since then, juvenile
Michele Deith said “Children brains are still under developed, then why tired them as an adult in court”. A child being tried as an adult effect their lives in many ways. The message of loss hope builds up in their minds prompting the idea that they can’t make mistakes. Because they fear they will always be tired unfairly. Also, being in prison for a life time for an ignorant mistake will make them more likely to commit more crimes. Crime records as a juvenile holds less than an adult record. Majority of juvenile cases are only classified as minor offensives. While, some cases may be different because of the crime, children should still be recognized for learning and should be held responsible however, not on an adult level.
There are a few states where you must be younger than 16 or 17, but mainly the age limit is 18. There is one state, Wyoming, where the maximum age is 19. In most states, children under the age of 7 are said to not be capable of determining right from wrong. If the child is younger than 7 that are usually not responsible for the acts they commit. Their parents may have to pay for damages to the victim, whether that be physical or mental. And in some cases the judge will determine that the parents are unfit to take care of or handle the child, so they are taken and placed with a family member or foster care. Most states children 14 and older are regarded as capable of forming criminal intent, so most of the cases involving children between 14 and 18 years of age are tried in juvenile court. A juvenile can be tried in adult criminal
As time has progressed, the Australian legal system has seen to the perpetual alteration of laws. In order to suit continual change in a contemporary and rapidly morphing society. The criminal justice system (CJS) is a scale which is continually reforming in an attempt to achieve justice for young offenders. However, achieving justice is a complex area and calls for the mandated evaluation of juvenile systems and Young Offenders Act (1997). In Australia the CJS aims to reduce recidivism and rehabilitate young law breakers by enhancing a combination of both welfare and justice. With such vast changes in this modern day society the law must be dynamic, responding to values and concerns, resolve issues as they develop, promote equality and respond
In the justice systems of North America there are many cases where the innocent party does not initially see retribution, and in some cases may be wrongfully convicted. Many cases of this nature do eventually reach a fair and just conclusion, with few or no ill effects. In cases that do not reach a fair and just conclusion and some that do, there are many damages and ill effects to both society and the true innocent party. Among this second subset of cases, those concerning youth suspects are not always treated fairly and may incur excess physiological and psychological damages. It is with this that the miscarriage of justice in juvenile criminal cases leads to many damaging effects with neither a clear nor easy pathway to recovery.
As more minors are committing violent crimes, the question of whether they should be tried as adults has arisen. Children as young as 13 or 14 are committing violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. Some of these children are being tried as adults while others are being tried as juveniles and receiving milder punishments. A juvenile offender may receive a few years in a juvenile detention facility and possibly probation following his release at age eighteen. An adult committing the same violent crime will receive a much harsher penalty, often years in jail, possibly a life sentence, with little or no chance of parole. The only difference between the two offenders is the age at which they committed the crime. Juveniles over
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