Causes Of Incarceration In Australia
In Australia, during 2010 there was approximately 38 young people incarcerated per 100,000, and this is why many believe the incarceration of youth to be one of the biggest issues in Australia. While these figures have dropped dramatically since 1981, many believe it can be lowered further. South Australia’s youth are prosecuted in accordance to the Young Offenders Act of 1993, which applies to youth between the ages of 10-17. This act aims to maintain social cohesion and progress, and it attempts to do this by assisting young people at risk from becoming involved in criminal activity, and to prevent reoffending through the provision of appropriate services and programs. Many members of the public believe, that the incarceration of the youth is not only ineffective and unnecessary, but also damaging the youth and causing recidivism, and instead we should follow
…show more content…
examples from other countries, such as Scotland, and provide more diversionary programmes, which many believe would solve a lot of these issues.
Currently, Australia’s primary answer to offending youth, for serious matters, is incarceration. However, across Australia many believe that the incarceration of youth is still the stem of the issue of recidivism, and therefore, the issue cannot be solved until the incarceration of youth is removed. Between 2011-12 approximately $640 million was spent on the youth justice system nationwide, and even with this much there the recidivism rates are anything but favourable. Approximately half of the juveniles appearing before a youth or children’s court will have been convicted previously, and approximately one-third of juveniles appearing
in the youth or children’s court will be reconvicted before the age of 18, additionally, it is also more common for youth to be reconvicted than adults, and this has led many to believe that the incarceration of youth is to blame. However, this is not the only issue with detention centres, Researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Centre found that congregating youth together for treatment in a group setting causes them to have a higher recidivism rate and poorer outcomes than youth who are not grouped together for treatment. The researchers call this process “peer deviancy training,” and reported statistically significant higher levels of substance abuse, school difficulties, delinquency, violence, and adjustment difficulties in adulthood for those youth treated in a peer group setting. Furthermore, with recent events in don dale detention centre, in Australia, many believe that these youth are turning out worse than before, and that these children in detention centres are being abused and treated unfairly. Basically, the approaches Australia takes are ineffective due to the stigmatising effect of labelling young offenders, and reinforcement of offenders’ criminal behaviour resulting from the collective detention, lack of pro-social influences and failure to address the underlying behaviour behind the offending behaviour.
However, while the incarceration of youth is one way to deal with the issue, many believe that diversionary programmes are the correct solution and the right way to go about preventing recidivism. Diversionary programmes prevent criminal activity or other undesirable behaviour before it occurs by removing or reducing the influence of “risk factors”, which may predict such behaviour,. Several of these ‘risk factors’ include, family dysfunction, a delinquent peer group, truancy or alcohol abuse, as well as the adding or strengthening of ‘protective factors’ such as good parenting, having a positive role model or part-time employment. While they primarily they focus on youth who have committed petty crimes, they leave the major offenders to the court and justice system, within Australia, the main state which effectively focuses on diversionary programmes is Victoria, and this is seem through studies which show that 9 in 100,000 youth are incarcerated. Currently, the most prominent diversionary programme within Australia is family conferences. Family conferences are primarily there to prosecute the youth, outside of the justice system, which what diversionary programmes are all about. Additionally, the benefit of family conferences is that it allows the youth to comply with the outcome of the conference, of which 89.2% did in 2002. Furthermore, it allows the youth to stay within the community/society, which means that they are allowed to continue their education at school, and are not constantly surrounded by other criminals, which studies have shown is a cause of recidivism. This is why so many people today believe that these diversionary programmes are the way to treat youth incarceration.
At the moment, while there are diversionary programmes in Australia, there is not a substantial amount of recorded data. Though throughout the world there are many countries, which have adopted diversionary programmes, greatly, into their youth justice systems and have seen great improvements. One of these countries is Sweden. Currently in Sweden persons under 15 who have committed a crime cannot be sentenced. If the under age offender is in need of corrective measures due to the crime, it is the responsibility of the National Board of Health and Welfare to find an adequate to the situation, which is often either putting the youth in to care in a family home or a home with special supervision. Furthermore, for youth who have committed a serious crime or repeatedly committed, instead of being sent to a prison they will be sent to a special youth home run, as mentioned in the Act on Special Rules for the Care of the Young. What is most important to note about this is that Sweden’s youth has a recidivism rate of around 38% in 2003, while Australia’s is around 50%. Furthermore, the rate of juvenile incarceration in Sweden in 2008 was 119,200 (and is dropping even further), in comparison; the USA was standing at 295 per 100,000 in 2010.
In conclusion, it is easy to see why many people can see how detention centres and the incarceration of young offenders is unnecessary and ineffective, and that the benefits of diversionary programmes; very cost-effective in generating long-term savings to taxpayers through reduction in future demand on the juvenile justice system, lower recidivism rates, and no possibility of “peer deviancy training’ is the right thing that Australia needs to implement further into their juvenile justice system. However, the difficulty of resolving this issue comes from causes of youth offending and how they are often related to other problems that the juvenile justice system cannot address in isolation (e.g. mental illness, substance abuse etc.). Therefore, juvenile justice systems need to coordinated and cover the full spectrum of required services including early intervention, family and school-based therapies, balancing public safety, public perceptions, and the needs of young offenders. Despite this issue, many still believe that the implementation of more diversionary programmes is necessary. As evidence from studies, and real world implications of diversionary programmes, suggest the more diversionary programmes the lower the crime and recidivism rate. However, it should be know that the need for detention centres is still there, as diversionary programmes are not effective for all youth.
examples from other countries, such as Scotland, and provide more diversionary programmes, which many believe would solve a lot of these issues.
Currently, Australia’s primary answer to offending youth, for serious matters, is incarceration. However, across Australia many believe that the incarceration of youth is still the stem of the issue of recidivism, and therefore, the issue cannot be solved until the incarceration of youth is removed. Between 2011-12 approximately $640 million was spent on the youth justice system nationwide, and even with this much there the recidivism rates are anything but favourable. Approximately half of the juveniles appearing before a youth or children’s court will have been convicted previously, and approximately one-third of juveniles appearing
in the youth or children’s court will be reconvicted before the age of 18, additionally, it is also more common for youth to be reconvicted than adults, and this has led many to believe that the incarceration of youth is to blame. However, this is not the only issue with detention centres, Researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Centre found that congregating youth together for treatment in a group setting causes them to have a higher recidivism rate and poorer outcomes than youth who are not grouped together for treatment. The researchers call this process “peer deviancy training,” and reported statistically significant higher levels of substance abuse, school difficulties, delinquency, violence, and adjustment difficulties in adulthood for those youth treated in a peer group setting. Furthermore, with recent events in don dale detention centre, in Australia, many believe that these youth are turning out worse than before, and that these children in detention centres are being abused and treated unfairly. Basically, the approaches Australia takes are ineffective due to the stigmatising effect of labelling young offenders, and reinforcement of offenders’ criminal behaviour resulting from the collective detention, lack of pro-social influences and failure to address the underlying behaviour behind the offending behaviour.
However, while the incarceration of youth is one way to deal with the issue, many believe that diversionary programmes are the correct solution and the right way to go about preventing recidivism. Diversionary programmes prevent criminal activity or other undesirable behaviour before it occurs by removing or reducing the influence of “risk factors”, which may predict such behaviour,. Several of these ‘risk factors’ include, family dysfunction, a delinquent peer group, truancy or alcohol abuse, as well as the adding or strengthening of ‘protective factors’ such as good parenting, having a positive role model or part-time employment. While they primarily they focus on youth who have committed petty crimes, they leave the major offenders to the court and justice system, within Australia, the main state which effectively focuses on diversionary programmes is Victoria, and this is seem through studies which show that 9 in 100,000 youth are incarcerated. Currently, the most prominent diversionary programme within Australia is family conferences. Family conferences are primarily there to prosecute the youth, outside of the justice system, which what diversionary programmes are all about. Additionally, the benefit of family conferences is that it allows the youth to comply with the outcome of the conference, of which 89.2% did in 2002. Furthermore, it allows the youth to stay within the community/society, which means that they are allowed to continue their education at school, and are not constantly surrounded by other criminals, which studies have shown is a cause of recidivism. This is why so many people today believe that these diversionary programmes are the way to treat youth incarceration.
At the moment, while there are diversionary programmes in Australia, there is not a substantial amount of recorded data. Though throughout the world there are many countries, which have adopted diversionary programmes, greatly, into their youth justice systems and have seen great improvements. One of these countries is Sweden. Currently in Sweden persons under 15 who have committed a crime cannot be sentenced. If the under age offender is in need of corrective measures due to the crime, it is the responsibility of the National Board of Health and Welfare to find an adequate to the situation, which is often either putting the youth in to care in a family home or a home with special supervision. Furthermore, for youth who have committed a serious crime or repeatedly committed, instead of being sent to a prison they will be sent to a special youth home run, as mentioned in the Act on Special Rules for the Care of the Young. What is most important to note about this is that Sweden’s youth has a recidivism rate of around 38% in 2003, while Australia’s is around 50%. Furthermore, the rate of juvenile incarceration in Sweden in 2008 was 119,200 (and is dropping even further), in comparison; the USA was standing at 295 per 100,000 in 2010.
In conclusion, it is easy to see why many people can see how detention centres and the incarceration of young offenders is unnecessary and ineffective, and that the benefits of diversionary programmes; very cost-effective in generating long-term savings to taxpayers through reduction in future demand on the juvenile justice system, lower recidivism rates, and no possibility of “peer deviancy training’ is the right thing that Australia needs to implement further into their juvenile justice system. However, the difficulty of resolving this issue comes from causes of youth offending and how they are often related to other problems that the juvenile justice system cannot address in isolation (e.g. mental illness, substance abuse etc.). Therefore, juvenile justice systems need to coordinated and cover the full spectrum of required services including early intervention, family and school-based therapies, balancing public safety, public perceptions, and the needs of young offenders. Despite this issue, many still believe that the implementation of more diversionary programmes is necessary. As evidence from studies, and real world implications of diversionary programmes, suggest the more diversionary programmes the lower the crime and recidivism rate. However, it should be know that the need for detention centres is still there, as diversionary programmes are not effective for all youth.