Fact:
The study of 395 juvenile offenders in NSW by the Australian Institute of Criminology concludes that those who spent time in detention were no less likely to have reoffended 12 months later than others given non-custodial sentences…
“Other things being equal, juveniles given custodial orders are no less likely to reoffend than juveniles given non-custodial orders. (The) adverse effects of imprisonment on employment outcomes and the absence of strong evidence that custodial penalties act as a specific deterrent for juvenile offending suggest that custodial penalties ought to be used very sparingly with juvenile offenders.”
Bullshit, transparently, obviously stupid avoidance of that fact:
Despite the report’s findings, Queensland’s Deputy Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg yesterday called for a crackdown on young offenders.
“They are just treating the justice system with contempt; they’re taking it for a ride,” Mr Springborg said. “Most people would understand that kids deserve one chance, maybe even two, as long as it’s not a serious crime of violence, such as murder or rape, but when you’re getting your third, fourth and 56th chance, it’s not good enough.”
And that is why Springborg advocates for the death penalty for teenagers who shoplift more than three times.
No, wait. He just wants us to lock them into criminal training facilities so that they can learn new “skills” from the more serious inmates for when they get out. Brilliant.
The question is simple: is the aim of the criminal law as regards children to reduce crime by reforming offenders, or is it just to make them suffer, even if that ends up training them to become hardened criminals? I’d suggest the former. Springborg and other “I will ignore the evidence because it sounds like I’m being tougher on crime” campaigners on this issue clearly prefer the latter.
Let’s hope, for all our sakes, they’re not put in a position to get their way.
Moved On 
Most people would understand that kids deserve one chance, maybe even two
Right, that’s it then. As a teenager, once you have made more than one mistake, *maybe* two mistakes, your done, your life is finnished, you have no hope of rehabillitation and should be locked away for the safety of the community.
It’s a good thing teenagers aren’t walking cyclones of unstable hormones and emotions and that they don’t make mistakes very often, or else Springborgs position might look a little detatched from reality.
There was some Institute of Criminology research released earlier this year that showed this tough on crime approach of NSW govt had yielder longer sentences, but no reduction in re-offender rates. The study looked at the period (i think) 1983 to 2007, pretty comprehensive.
I can’t remember whether it was just adults or adults and youth. But in any case, it makes sense that exposing young people to the prison system should be the absolute last resort.
The question is simple: is the aim of the criminal law as regards children to reduce crime by reforming offenders, or is it just to make them suffer
Isn’t it generally accepted that the aim of the law is to do a little bit of both?
It would make no sense waive punishment for someone who has broken the law simply because the court believed they wouldn’t do it again. Equally it would make no sense to throw the sentencing book at someone whose crime was a highly likely to be a one-off.
Thus the courts are required to undertake a very difficult and complex task of balancing the two goals. The question is hardly a simple one.
Springborg’s a populist idiot, but he’s nonetheless highlighting a valid point – likelihood of recdivism can’t be the only factor taken into account when sentencing criminals.
Obviously both are factors, but in the case of children the former is supposed to outweigh the latter. In any case, there are plenty of forms of punishment short of jail. What I meant was that in most cases we don’t need to go anywhere near the sort of punishment Springborg seems to advocate – jail is neither the only, nor the best way of punishing an offending youth. Even for the third or fourth time.
Sorry – I missed the point you were making.
You’re obviously correct. While punishment is an important part of sentencing, demanding that the punishment take the form of jail time for adolescents (particularly with all of the consequences that flow from that) is fairly barbaric.
It’s this line that anything short of time inside isn’t a “real” punishment that gets me. Time inside is the most destructive form of punishment, true… but that’s destructive to ALL of us, not just the offender.
It will be interesting to see if this thread generates as many comments and as much heat as the one on being cruel to horses.
Someone should suggest we horsewhip children. That’ll get it going.
What do you do then when underage offenders commit crimes? Tell them they are bad? That they have hurt someone elses feelings? That they have hurt someone physically that will scar them for the rest of their lives (as has happened to my father in law)?
Actions have consequences – don’t break the law, don’t get the consequences. Simple. To most people.
BTW – prison is about punishment. Not rehabilitation (that is a side issue). Your freedom is being taken away because you could not live by societies rules and you caused someone else to feel physical, emotional or financial pain. Where you get sent to serve this punishment is the issue here. I would prefer that young offenders don’t graduate from “gladiator” or “criminal” school and come out with more knowledge of how to commit crime when they went in. Maybe segregation in detention facilities is the way to go. Keep the minor offenders apart from the violent scumbags who have altered peoples lives forever. And if people have commited a crime that has forever changed someone’s life whether through violence, sexual assault etc, then lock then away for much, much longer. In fact I could not care less if we didn’t see them on the street again. A real human being assesses the consequences of their actions BEFORE they do the action.
There is room for leeway, but only after they have proved their contrition and willingness to conform to societies laws.
Is anybody else depressed by the fact that, despite evidence such as this, the ‘tough on crime’ mantra will remain a powerful vote-winner?
Yes. Mandatory sentencing being a case in point.
“What do you do then when underage offenders commit crimes? Tell them they are bad? That they have hurt someone elses feelings? That they have hurt someone physically that will scar them for the rest of their lives (as has happened to my father in law)?”
You work your way through the sentencing scale. You have checked that out before deciding that prison’s the only sort of real punishment available, right?
Fines, community work, compulsory programs – there are a number of constructive punishments that can and should be tried. You might think they sound “soft”, but only because you’ve never had to do them.
“In fact I could not care less if we didn’t see them on the street again.”
How serious would a crime have to be before you’d send someone – particularly a kid – away for life?