The Effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Dealing with Young Offenders

The processing of these crimes help to embed the key of legal knowledge in the mind of a child hoping to shape their future actions. NSW age of criminal responsibility is defined by statute as 10 years of age, which is recognised in Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). Meaning that a child under 10 years of age cannot be charged for a crime. The basis of this is the recognition of the immaturity and exposure of children and their inability to form the requisite criminal intent known as mens

Over 1/3 of the 11,000 index crime arrests were juveniles under the age of 16.

There have been many studies conducted that examine ways in which the juvenile justice system responds to female offenders. Historically juvenile female offenders have been treated under status offense jurisdiction (Zahn et al., 2010, p. 10). United States Courts would exercise the principle of “parens patriae” to place the female in detention as a form of punishment for misbehavior (Sherman, 2012, pp. 1589-1590). This principle also remains prevalent as it pertains to how the juvenile justice system currently responds to juvenile female offenders.

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

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

There is much debate over whether or not juveniles should ever be tried as adults. Juveniles are defined as children under the age of 18. In the past, juveniles have been tried in a separate juvenile court because of their age. However, trying juveniles as adults for violent crimes is a trend that is on the rise. Age is supposed to be a deterrent for placing those under 18 on trial and giving them stiffer punishments that are often reserved for adults. Many debate whether or not juveniles really should have less severe punishments or if trying some juveniles as adults will lower juvenile crime rates.

Throughout this essay, I am going to be looking at the topic of youth offending. I will be looking at what factors can be used as the predictors for youth offending and in particular I will be researching into how important social and cultural factors as predictors of youth offending. In order to do this, I will be looking at different sociologists theories as far as young offending is concerned and what evidence there is to support these theories. I will then conclude by discussing whether I believe social and cultural factors are important in determining youth offending.

In America we sometimes house juveniles and adults in the same prison system. In the state of Wisconsin in 2014, we have incarcerated 121 minors into the adult system. While incarcerating these juveniles in the prison system some may wonder how does it affect a juvenile, Also what problems do they face while in prison and lastly, how has their life change for better or worse after they are released back into society.

These individual rights must be effectively balanced against these present and emerging community concerns: Widespread drug abuse among youth The threat of juvenile crime Urban gang violence High-technology, computer, and Internet crime (cybercrime) Terrorism and narcoterrorism Occupational and whitecollar crime

Youth offenders in the United States who commit an adult crime should they be tried as an adult or sent off to rehab?

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

The National Registry for Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP), which is preserved by the United States’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), provide a list of all evidence-based practices that are beneficial for youth offenders (SAMHSA, 2017). Per SAMHSA (2017), between 50-70 percent of the youth in the juvenile justice system, have a mental disorder and up to 60 percent have been diagnosed with a substance use disorder (SAMHSA, 2017). Of those youth with dual diagnosis, approximately 30 percent have lost the ability to function as a result of their disorder (SAMHSA, 2017). Therefore, to determine the best treatment plan for youth offenders, evidence-based practices focus on the importance of

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

subjected to the juvenile justice system, but an alarming number of youths are transferred to