The Australian Juvenile Justice Act 1992

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.

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.

In Spring 2009, three offenders, all in grade eleven , set two houses is Sherwood park on fire. The youth criminal justice Act (YCJA) provided opportunities for them to reintegrate and rehabilitate, instead of throwing them in jail. YCJA covers kids between the ages twelve to seventeen years old. It 's purpose is to handle youth offenders more differently than adults because of their undeveloped minds. The YCJA was released back in 2003. By protecting the rights and providing Youth Canadians the support they need, the YCJA benefits the offenders in a positive way. The act gentrust the youth a second chance to make sure they don 't reoffend by rehabilitating and reintegrating them. Also youth over the age 14 years can get an adult sentence if necessary. Therefore, the YCJA is an effective law because it supports everyone; youth will acquire the help they need and Public Safety is insured.

Currently each state and territory in Australia has its own individual legislation concerning juvenile crime. All state and territory laws do not conform to the Conventions on the Right of the Child and it is crucial that these laws are amended to better protect juveniles. The most effective reform that could be made is for each state and territory to amend their individual legislations to increase the minimum age to be criminally responsible from 10 to 12 with the doli incapax doctrine still being applied. Although it has been acknowledged that under the common law doctrine doli incapax, children between 10 and 14 are only criminally responsible if the individual is mature enough to realise the consequences of their actions, this assessment is left to the judge, often without expert knowledge from a phycologist (Amnesty International, 2015). Furthermore, it is crucial for Queensland to raise their maximum age from 17 to 18. This amendment will allow Australia to keep up with international standards while reducing Aboriginal crime in areas where crime rates are

Youth crime is a growing epidemic that affects most teenagers at one point in their life. There is no question in society to whether or not youths are committing crimes. It has been shown that since 1986 to 1998 violent crime committed by youth jumped approximately 120% (CITE). The most controversial debate in Canadian history would have to be about the Young Offenders Act (YOA). In 1982, Parliament passed the Young Offenders Act (YOA). Effective since 1984, the Young Offenders Act replaced the most recent version of the Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA). The Young Offenders Act’s purpose was to shift from a social welfare approach to making youth take responsibility for their actions. It also addressed concerns that the paternalistic

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is the law that helps govern youth offenders in Canada, which has been created to introduce a overall fair and equitable method to deal with youth criminal offenders but could use further improvements. This act applies to youth between the ages of 12 and 17 and who have taken an offensive action against the law. Over the century there have been 3 youth justice statutes; the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908-1984), the Young Offenders Act (YOA) (1984-2003), and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) (2003-present). Significant changes were made to the act to make it much more fair and straight to the point. Changes such as the useage of courts in non-serious cases, fairness in sentencing, and lack of effective interrogation.

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 alternative is structure to youths and some adults that may have bad behavior. Inside the program you can get a list of positive programs, for example education, community service, healthcare physical and mentally, and job training that can assist you in society (Vissing, Y., & Vissing, 2012). However, the main goal is to punish, deterrence, and most important rehabilitation (Vissing, Y., & Vissing). Their tactics are the scared straight or shock treatment just as the military use when they enter basic training for the first time. All the rules configured where there is no room for misconceptions. Boot camps can be state or private organized, but the focus these boot camp is the financial status. The cost is less than being in a correctional facility. The amount stretches from $3,500 per month to $50,000 budget. Therefore, this is a great benefit for the juvenile so he can get a second chance at a young

One person may argue that young offenders that commit tremendous crimes should not be able to have these special privileges. What they may not realize is that young offenders can fall under what is called “the age of presumption”, which is when a young offender commits an indictable crime and is over the age of fourteen, but less than eighteen years of age. If a child is under this category, their crime can be punished by being given an adult sentence, but only if the child has committed first degree murder or a serious violent offence (Howard Society, 2008). The YCJA gives the opportunity to discipline youth criminals without treating them as harsh as adults would be.

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

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.

Young offenders are risking greater ‘pain’ such as lengthy imprisonment or large fines, for dangerous offences like car theft, or home invasions. This reckless ignorance of potential outcomes, is not taken into perspective when looking at it from a classical perspective. The inability to understand the recklessness and lack of rationality in Melbourne’s youth, is a key weakness and limitation of Classical criminology.

The juvenile justice system is a system that evolves with society focusing on the welfare of the child, and the protection to the community. The history of the modern juvenile justice system began with the English common law. The common law specified an age limit on when a child could begin to be held accountable for criminal acts, which placed the age limit at seven (Champion, 2010). Although an age limit was placed on offenders, during the 1700s criminal offenders were treated in the same manner, which could include banishment, whippings, and other corporal punishments for offenders over the

Youth crime and juvenile delinquency are very sensitive issues that are a concern in every society. The thought of criminalising people who are not even considered adults yet, and are not fully mature in cognitive development is a troubling issue. Yet, many societies are faced with the problem of young people committing crime. Many criminal justice systems around the world have schemes for juvenile delinquency and legal repercussions for the failure of young people to comply with the law.