Jailing is failing: proposed youth justice reforms by Dan Rogers

This week the Liberal National Party pledged to remove detention “as a last resort” for young offenders in its first two months of government if it wins the October state election. Queensland Premier Steven Miles has also left the door open to such a reform. Youth justice is clearly a matter of great community concern. It is already assuming great focus in the lead up to the State election. The community is, for good reason, demanding to be safe. However, all the research shows that jailing children makes our community less safe. This is a complex social problem, but Queensland deserves smart solutions; not tough ones.

Young people occupy a vulnerable place in our society. They are still undergoing important brain development, and both behavioural psychology and neuroscience attest that adolescents are less able to control their impulses, plan ahead, and weigh the consequences of their decisions before acting. This, in addition to their susceptibility to peer influence, means that young people are attracted to novel and risky activities and may become involved in criminal behaviour. However, the impressionability of young people also means that they are receptive to positive interventions and can be guided to a better path. Diverting young people from formal court processes and from prison environments is most important. I implore those interested to read about “Justice Reinvestment” as a better evidence based solution to jail.

It is for the above reasons that international law has promoted the establishment of separate juvenile justice systems which treats young offenders differently to adult offenders. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in its commentary on the Convention on the Rights of the Child has noted that “the protection of the best interests of the child means ... that the traditional objectives of criminal justice, such as repression/retribution, must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives in dealing with child offenders.”

It is thus of great concern that the Queensland opposition is seeking to pass amendments which steer the law in the direction of punishment and deterrence rather than rehabilitation. Of equal concern is the fact that there is little evidence these measures will have the desired effect of preventing juvenile crime and protecting the community.? Detention is often acknowledged as criminogenic and is associated with high levels of recidivism.

These proposed amendments also have the potential to have a discriminatory effect when applied in the community. Many children who come into contact with the juvenile justice system lead difficult lives and come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Indigenous youth are grossly overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.

Long after our feelings of retribution and punishment might be temporarily satisfied, we are left with more dangerous and more traumatised children who present greater risks to our safety. The youth justice debate is a healthy one. However, it should be approached with a recognition that children are vulnerable and that evidence-based solutions work best.?