![]() This is primarily because offending ‘peaks’ in late adolescence, when young people are aged 18 to 19 years and are no longer legally defined as juveniles. On the contrary, police data indicate that juveniles (10 to 17 year olds) comprise a minority of all offenders who come into contact with the police. This does not mean, however, that juveniles are responsible for the majority of recorded crime. The proportion of crime perpetrated by juveniles Offender rates have been consistently highest among persons aged 15 to 19 years and lowest among those aged 25 years and over. In 2007–08, the offending rate for persons aged 15 to 19 years was four times the rate for offenders aged more than 19 years (6,387 and 1,818 per 100,000 respectively AIC 2010). Persons aged 15 to 19 years are more likely to be processed by police for the commission of a crime than are members of any other population group. It is widely accepted that crime is committed disproportionately by young people. How juvenile offending differs from adult offending That is, children under 10 years of age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. In all jurisdictions, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. In Queensland, a juvenile is defined as a person aged between 10 and 16 years, inclusive. In each Australian jurisdiction, except Queensland, a juvenile is defined as a person aged between 10 and 17 years of age, inclusive. The United Nations’ (1985: 2) Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the ‘Beijing Rules’) stress the importance of nations establishingĪ set of laws, rules and provisions specifically applicable to juvenile offenders and institutions and bodies entrusted with the functions of the administration of juvenile justice and designed to meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders, while protecting their basic rights. As such, juveniles are typically dealt with separately from adults and treated less harshly than their adult counterparts. ![]() It is widely acknowledged today, however, both in Australia and internationally, that juveniles should be subject to a system of criminal justice that is separate from the adult system and that recognises their inexperience and immaturity. Until the mid-nineteenth century, there was no separate category of ’juvenile offender’ in Western legal systems and children as young as six years of age were incarcerated in Australian prisons (Cunneen & White 2007). Until the early twentieth century, children in Australia were even subjected to the same penalties as adults, including hard labour and corporal and capital punishment (Carrington & Pereira 2009). Historically, children in criminal justice proceedings were treated much the same as adults and subject to the same criminal justice processes as adults. Although juvenile offenders are highly diverse, and this diversity should be considered in any response to juvenile crime, a number of key strategies exist in Australia to respond effectively to juvenile crime. These factors, combined with juveniles’ unique capacity to be rehabilitated, can require intensive and often expensive interventions by the juvenile justice system. It is argued that a range of factors, including juveniles’ lack of maturity, propensity to take risks and susceptibility to peer influence, as well as intellectual disability, mental illness and victimisation, increase juveniles’ risks of contact with the criminal justice system. This paper outlines the factors (biological, psychological and social) that make juvenile offenders different from adult offenders and that necessitate unique responses to juvenile crime. ![]() While a substantial proportion of crime is perpetuated by juveniles, most juveniles will ‘grow out’ of offending and adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. ![]() Foreword | Responding to juvenile offending is a unique policy and practice challenge.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |