Youth, crime and juvenile justice: an overview of Australian trends and issues

Dr Adam Tomison

Presented at the ‘Locked up and Left out’ National Youth Week Seminar, Institute of Child Protection Studies, 18 April 2012, ACU Canberra

• Most children and young people engage in risky behaviours at some stage, but most of these don’t become involved in the criminal justice system. And of those who do have some contact with police, for most it’s a one-off minor event. Thus, children and young people will push the boundaries, engage in some risk taking and in early adulthood will have settled down into what might be described as being a decent and law-abiding citizen.

• Yet society’s views of children, esp. adolescents is often of dangerous hormone-crazed maniacs out to destroy the world. Winn described the ‘myth of the teenage werewolf’; the underlying tenet of the myth was essentially that ‘no matter how pleasant and sweet and innocent their child might be at the moment, how amiable and docile and friendly, come the first hormonal surge of puberty, and the child will turn into an uncontrollable monster’ (Winn

1983:14).

Such fears seem quite pervasive at present, and we are seeing a strong attitudinal change in Australia and a number of other western democracies such that children and teenagers are no longer ‘innocents’ who may breach - and need to be educated and change their behaviour to meet - community norms but are seen as little adults who must take responsibility for their actions. Public sympathy for troubled adolescents has shifted to media-fuelled public support for ‘get tough’ approaches, particularly in the area of juvenile justice –this can be encapsulated by the ‘get tough on crime’.

This doesn’t mean that young people should be allowed to commit crimes, but it impacts on the approaches we take to deal with youth and their risk taking. If young people are more likely to be perceived in negative terms – as a ‘problem group’, a ‘threat to social stability’ or as ‘disadvantaged’ – the resultant policies are most likely to be designed to control, manage, rather than to encourage and support young people’s transition to adulthood. In this presentation I’ll give a broad overview of juvenile justice statistics and some issues. I’ll also focus on the importance of early intervention, with a focus on the prevention of child abuse and neglect because of maltreatment (as a form of family dysfunction) as an important precursor of subsequent offending.

Age of criminal responsibility

Cannot be charged with an

offence

Presumption against criminal

responsibility

Maximum age for appearance in youth court

NSW Under 10 10 to under 14 Under 18

Vic. Under 10 10 to under 14 Under 18*

Qld Under 10 10 to under 14 Under 17

WA Under 10 10 to under 14 Under 18

SA Under 10 10 to under 14 Under 18

Tas. Under 10 10 to under 14 Under 18

NT Under 10 10 to under 14 Under 18

ACT Under 10 10 to under 14 Under 18

*Victoria has a dual-track system for young offenders.

Trends in justice contact with young people

• More young males than young females;

Female offending increasing rapidly

• A disproportionately high number of Indigenous juveniles;

• More older juveniles than younger juveniles;

• More property crimes than crimes against the person;

Violent crimes increasing

• Diversionary measures predominate (such as warnings, cautions and conferences) rather than traditional legal measures (proceeding to court).

• The use of detention is relatively low - <1100 incarcerated on any day in 2010/11.

General pattern of reduced use of detention (although last 6 years have seen an increase)

• Increased use of remand (un-sentenced detention)

• Very high over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention

Offenders, by age, 1996–97 to 2009-10 (rate per 100,000 relevant persons)

96–97 97–98 98–99 99–00 00–01 01–02 02–03 03–04 04–05 05–06 06–07 07–08 08-09 09-100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10–14 15–19 20–24 25+ All

Juveniles in detention in Australia 1981–2010 (rate per 100,000)

1981

1982

1983

1984

1984

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

65 6357

4641 40 41

37 3740

3429

3237 38 38 37 37

33 3128

2529

26 27 2933

3730

40

Juveniles in detention 2010-11 (AIHW 2011)

• 1100 in detention in 10/11 on any day

0.4 per 1000 young people = 0.04% of juvenile population

92% males

Half are Indigenous – 24 times more likely to be in detention

• Length of stay for sentenced:

median 60 days; average 16 weeks

• For un-sentenced (remanded):

• median 4 days stay; average 5 weeks

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1715

1619 19 19 18

21 21 20

2623

21

28

24 24 24

Over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention in Australia, 1994-2008 (rate ratios)

Female juvenile offenders• Overall female offending rate in 2009-10 was 892 per 100,000 female

population (0.8%)

• Rapid rise in juvenile female offending by 10-14 year age group (12%+ in 3 years) & aged 15-19 years (33% in 4 years)

• Comparing 1996-97 and 2009-10 rates of juvenile offending: 4% increase for male offending; 67% increase for females

• Female juvenile robbery increased by 89%, from 13 per 100,000 in 2006-07 to 25 per 100,000 in 2009-10.

• The two categories with the highest rate of female juvenile offending in 2009-10 were assault (201 per 100,000) and ‘other theft’ (748 per 100,000).

Proportion of all juveniles in detention that were un-sentenced (on remand), 1981-2008 (%)

19811982198319841985198619871988198919901990199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720080

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

21.4

59.5

The pathway from child maltreatment to juvenile justice

Prevalence of abuse and neglect in Australia

Australian prevalence estimates:• 5-10% of children suffer physical abuse;• 2-12% are neglected (underestimate);• 6-17% are emotionally abused or neglected;• 12-23% are exposed to parental (domestic) violence.

Sexual abuse:• 4-8% of males suffer penetrative abuse and 12-16% non-

penetrative abuse;• 7-12% of females suffer penetrative abuse and 23-36% non-

penetrative abuse (Price-Robertson et al. 2010).

Widom & Maxfield 2001

• Tracked 1,575 cases over 25 years from childhood to adulthood and compared arrest records:

- 908 substantiated victims of abuse or neglect;

- 667 children not officially recorded as ‘abused’ or ‘neglected’ but matched by race, age, sex and family socio-economic status

• The maltreated children were found to be 30% more likely to be arrested for a violent crime later in life

Stewart et al. 2008 • Study of all children born in Queensland in 1983/84 who had

contact with the child protection system

- school transitions were times when children were more likely to experience maltreatment

- children whose maltreatment trajectories started or continued into adolescence were more likely to offend

• 26% of maltreated children went on to offend c/f: 17% of children who were not maltreated 20% of children who had a ‘not substantiated’ notification

• Significant predictors of offending:

- gender (males )

- Indigenous status (Indigenous children )

- timing of final maltreatment incident (adolescent )

- number of notifications and maltreatment incidents

- experience of physical abuse and neglect (Dennison et al. 2005)

Teague & Mazerolle 2008

• Interviewed 480 offenders on community corrections orders in Queensland

• Respondents reporting physical abuse during childhood were significantly more likely to have committed violent or property offences

• However, little difference in the prevalence or frequency of sexual offending between groups

Salter et al. 2003

• 224 former male victims of sexual abuse tracked for 7-19 years

• 26 (12%) committed sexual offences, and almost all against a child

• Risk factors during childhood for later offending included:

lack of supervision

sexual abuse by a female person

frequently witnessed intrafamilial violence

• CSA victims no more likely to commit sexual or violent offences c/f those who experienced other forms of maltreatment (Salter et al., 2003; Widom & Maxfield, 2001)

What about system effects? Effect of out of home care

• At 30 June 2010, there were 35,895 children in OOHC across Australia

• Rates of children in OOHC have increased each year since 2005, from 4.9 to 7.0 children per 100,000

• Little known about the links between OOHC and subsequent offending

• Children entering OOHC already have multiple risk factors – it is therefore difficult to determine effects of OOHC itself

Dennison et al:

‘[As] children who are placed outside the home tend to be those who are Indigenous, who have experienced maltreatment at multiple times and in multiple forms, it is important to determine the outcomes for these children and whether out of home placements served to break the cycle of victimisation and provide protective factors for the child’ (2005:103)

Community, family and individual factors

• McGee et al 2011: Family and neighbourhood predictors of adolescent antisocial behaviour.

• Used ABS census data and the Mater University Study of Pregnancy (MUSP) - a prospective longitudinal study of mothers and their children in Brisbane, Australia;

• Used data from birth through to adolescence (age 14 years).

• <1% of variation in antisocial behaviour attributable to community effects

• Strongest predictors were disruptions in parenting processes, poor school performance and early childhood aggression.

Capsi et al 2002 Dunedin study

• Nature vs Nurture – Genetic and environmental effects

• Studied a birth cohort of 1,037 children in Dunedin

• Maltreated male children, those with a particular genotype (MAOA) were more likely than those without the genotype, to offend later in life.

• Capsi et al (2002: 853) argued:

attempts to explain why some maltreated children but not others become violent later in life ‘has focused on social experiences that may protect some children, overlooking a potential protective role of genes’.

Conclusion: Ways forward

• Prevention is better than cure - Early identification and effective intervention for maltreatment and family dysfunction

• Opportunities for healthy risk-taking

• Analysis and need for responsiveness to changes in offending

• Therapeutic/medical interventions in detention and post-release

• Programs specific to young people