Journal of the Institute
Impacting Juvenile Justice in Australia
Yüklə 1,2 Mb.
|
Impacting Juvenile Justice in Australia:The Experience of Family Group ConferencingRick Sarre* Introduction The notion of restorative justice has been a topic of particular interest among justice practitioners and academics in Australia, especially in the last twenty years. The concept has, however, been recognized for a hundred years and its roots lie in antiquity (Sarre 1999; Sarre and Earle 2004). This paper is designed to look at one aspect of restorative justice: the idea of family group conferencing for juvenile offenders. Before reviewing that notion, it is worth spending a few moments looking at some theoretical premises. In a traditional model of criminal justice, crime is defined as a violation of the state, the focus is on blame, deterrence and punishment, and the offense is defined in purely legal terms, devoid of moral, social and political dimensions. In restorative models, crime is defined as a violation of one person by another, the focus is upon problem-solving, dialogue and restitution (where possible), mutuality, the repair of social injury and the possibilities of repentance and forgiveness. The offense is understood in a range of dimensions including its moral, social and political implications (Braithwaite 1989, 1999, 2002; Ministry of Justice New Zealand 1995; Sherman 2003). In restorative settings, communities are asked to seek their own solutions to problems, rather than relying upon the state to take center stage. Such is the design of family group conferences, sometimes referred to as ‘youth justice conferences’, designed to divert young people away from formal court processes and thereby prevent them from being drawn further and deeper into the criminal justice system. Moreover, these programs are designed to be cheaper. A formal criminal process costs the state a great deal more money than services delivered through mediation, conciliation and private restitution.
The experiment of family group conferencing has been widely embraced in Australia and New Zealand, and has been the subject of much research in its implementation (for example, Moore 1993; Morris and Maxwell 1993; Bargen 1995; La Prairie 1995, 1996; Wundersitz 1996a; Wundersitz and Hetzel 1996; Blagg 1997, 1998; Daly 2002). A ‘family conference’ for juvenile offenders is available as a sentencing option in many jurisdictions, bringing together the offender(s), their extended families and advocates (if appropriate), the victim(s), the police and an independent mediator (in the South Australian model). Under this system, offenders are required to confront their wrongdoing (for the most part less serious offenses) while being empowered to develop their own negotiated settlement. The aim of the process is to bring about reconciliation, not to exact punishment. Once there has been an admission of guilt by a young person, police, under the South Australian model, are the ‘gatekeepers’ for the choice between an offender going to court for sentence, being sent to a conference or being cautioned. The legislation involved is the Young Offenders Act 1993 and the Youth Court Act 1994. While there had been an ad hoc ‘conferencing’ program directed by police in Wagga Wagga (New South Wales) since 1989, South Australia was the first jurisdiction in Australia to legislate formally. Once a conference has been ordered, trained justice coordinators have carriage of proceedings. Lawyers can request a conference, but cannot order one. Police usually make the decision to refer or not to refer, but a magistrate can override their decision in 50% of conferences the victim attends. In 90% of cases a resolution agreeable to all is reached. Possible negotiated outcomes include apologies, orders seeking up to 300 hours of community-service work, financial compensation and restitution, or any other agreed measure. Any matter where the youth fails to appear or fails to accept the settlement (this occurs in about 10% of matters) is referred to court. There is no appeal from a conference decision. If there is no agreement during the conference or if the matter is very serious, it is referred to court. Referrals to conferences are essentially for assault, larceny and property damage cases. They are not for the more serious offenses. There are usually four phases to the conference (Daly, 1996:3), although the structure is not rigid and essentially proceedings are free-flowing: 1. The conference coordinator sets out the purpose of the conference, its legal status and the rights of each of the participants. 2. The focus then switches to the offender(s) and their supporters: How did the offense come about and what were the consequences? 3. The focus shifts then to the victim(s): What was the impact of the offense on them and what were their feelings and reactions? 4. Finally, participants are directed towards a discussion on what the offender ought to do to enable all those associated with the matter ‘to put the incident behind them’ and/or to compensate or to be compensated for the harm caused. Conference time usually ranges from 45 to 90 minutes, not counting the time sometimes taken in post-conference discussions. Most conference time is taken up with phases two and three. Evaluative Data It has been found in evaluative studies that offenders are more likely to respond to their justice experience positively when they perceive it to be fair, and the evidence is clear that conferencing programs do give rise to favorable perceptions (Strang, 2000:27). But what about actually reducing crime? Is there evidence that these conferences are more than just a “feel good” exercise? Results of evaluations on the effect of restorative justice on re-offending are mixed. Generally speaking, at the very least, offending rates are no worse for those who are directed to restorative justice options compared to those who go to court (Cunneen and White, 2002:374). On balance, evaluations tend to show either no difference or one favorably inclined towards restorative justice initiatives. For example, research in New South Wales in May 2002 found that young people (under 18 years) appearing before a youth justice conference for property and violent crime had a lower re-offending rate than similar young people appearing before the children’s court. According to a Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) study authored by Garth Luke and Bronwyn Lind, the proportion of juveniles who re-offend is about 28% lower amongst those referred to the youth justice conference compared to the children’s court. The number of re-appearances in court, too, is about 24% lower among those referred to a youth justice conference compared to those who proceed through the children’s court (Luke and Lind, 2002). The authors of the report concluded that an appearance before the youth justice conference reduced the likelihood of re-offending for both violent and property-related crimes and that this was especially so for indigenous offenders. On the whole, there were reductions of between 15-20% in re-offending across different offense types regardless of the gender, criminal history, age, and Aboriginality of offenders. Kathleen Daly’s work concluded that there are two variables that, if present, appear to make a difference to recidivism rates. These variables are, firstly, genuine remorse by the individual concerned and, secondly, a genuine consensus in fashioning an appropriate outcome (Daly and Hayes, 2001). The RISE project (Reintegrative Shaming Experiments) in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) requires especial mention. RISE is a randomized study that compares restorative conferencing with court processing in relation to the offenses of drunk driving; juvenile property offending with personal victims; juvenile shoplifting detected by store security officers; and violent crimes committed by youth (aged 29 and under). The project has three central hypotheses, being:
Although the project is yet to complete its follow-up analysis of recidivism rates, and cost benefits, most cases have had at least one year of follow up data. The results in relation to the first hypothesis, procedural fairness, show that both offenders and victims found conferences to be fairer than court (Sherman, Strang, & Woods, 2000:4). In particular, victims reported a higher level of satisfaction with conferences than with court (Sherman et al, 2000:4). The second hypothesis results are significant for our purposes, and are as follows.
The RISE project indicates that for juvenile offenders, conferencing alternatives produce no difference in recidivism rates than do courts, however, the juvenile groups are yet to run the full follow-up time of the experiment. Regarding costs, the study is not yet complete, but, given that the costs of running a conference are far less than the costs of a court procedure, conferencing would seem an economically viable option. In summary, the RISE experiment, as a randomized study, does allow us to become far more confident about the effects of conferencing upon violent offenders, even if not juvenile offenders. If there were to be some suspicion about the self-selectivity of some of the candidates for conferences in other jurisdictions, then this study has gone a significant way to dispelling those suspicions. Has There Been a Diversionary Effect? There is some doubt about the diversionary effects of conferencing. Of the 7,831 apprehensions of juveniles lodged in South Australia in 2002, for example, 27.5% resulted in a formal caution, 15.1% were diverted to a family conference, 42% went to Youth Court, while 15.5% of allegations were either withdrawn or the outcome was unknown (OCSAR 2004). These are not entirely encouraging results. In 1994, for example, in South Australia, that is, the year before the changes to the legislation that introduced conferencing, only 40% of juvenile justice matters coming to the attention of police were referred to court (or the allied ‘aid panel’). The design of the framers of the legislation was that conference would divert 30% of all offenders away from court (Sarre, 1994:148). That clearly has not happened. It would be valuable to have a further analysis of diversionary rates in other jurisdictions before one could safely say that the successes of conferencing were not simply due to the fact that its candidates were more likely to succeed and would previously have received only a police caution. Conferencing Throughout Australia today All States, except Victoria, and the Northern Territory have the provision for some form of family conferencing for juveniles enshrined in legislation. The ACT is only employing conferencing as far as the RISE project is used, but implementation of restorative justice options are under current consideration (ACT Government 2003). Additionally, Victoria employs conferencing as a sentencing option, although it has no legislative backing. South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT use conferencing primarily as a diversionary option from court. New South Wales and the Northern Territory use conferences as a sentencing option or as a diversion from court. Furthermore, all jurisdictions, except for Tasmania and Northern Territory (as of 2001), have undertaken reviews of their systems and have results available. Tasmania is yet to release the report of their review. Common themes arising out of the reviews are as follows (ACT Government 2003):
There was some hope that conferencing would help implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which had, in 1991, called for justice initiatives that would allow the families of Aboriginal youth to develop strategies that addressed the individual needs of the child within the family situation and reduced the rate at which Aboriginal juveniles were involved with the criminal justice system (Royal Commission 1991, 1994). In her review of conferencing in 1996, Joy Wundersitz, director of the South Australian Office of Crime Statistics and Research (Wundersitz 1996b:125), presented the view that conferencing can be culturally sensitive, but that the process was capable of improvement. Furthermore, an Australian Law Reform Commission report in 1997 expressed concern that the process be not intimidating to Aboriginal suspects. The ALRC also expressed the desire that conferencing be further monitored to ensure that it had no net-widening effects (ALRC 1997). Conferencing has now been implemented in a range of jurisdictions across the United States, while in Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is sponsoring the development of a national model of community conferencing. While one might express some doubts about the transferability of any justice program from one jurisdiction to another, the number of sites where the idea has caught policy-developers’ attention indicates that the experiment has been perceived as potentially internationally adaptable.
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government, (2003), Restorative Justice Options for the ACT: Issues Paper, Department of Justice and Community Safety. Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) (1997) Seen and Heard, Priority for Children in the Legal Process report no. 84, Sydney. Bargen, J. (1995) A Critical View of Conferencing, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Special Supplementary Issue 1995, 100-103. Blagg, H. (1997) A Just Measure of Shame? Aboriginal Youth and Conferencing in Australia, British Journal of Criminology 37(4), Autumn, 481-501. ——— (1998) Restorative Visions and Restorative Justice Practices: Conferencing, Ceremony and Reconciliation in Australia, Current Issues in Criminal Justice 10(1), 5-14. Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braithwaite, J. (1999) Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts, Crime and Justice, A Review of Research, Vol 25, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Braithwaite, J. (2002) Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cunneen, C. and White, R. (2002) Juvenile Justice: Youth and Crime in Australia, South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Daly, K. (1996) Diversionary Conferences in Australia: A Reply to the Optimists and Sceptics. Unpublished paper presented to the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, November 1996. Daly, K. (2002) Restorative Justice and Conferencing, in Graycar, Adam and Grabosky, Peter (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Australian Criminology, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 294-331. Daly, K. and Hayes, H. (2001) Restorative Justice and Conferencing in Australia, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 186, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. La Prairie, C. (1995) Altering Course: New Directions in Criminal Justice, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Special Supplementary Issue, 78-99. ——— (1996) Sentencing Circles and Family Group Conferences, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, March, 74-5. Luke, G. and Lind, B. (2002) Reducing Juvenile Crime, Crime and Justice Bulletin 69, Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), Sydney: New South Wales, Australia. Ministry of Justice New Zealand (1995) Restorative Justice: Discussion Paper. Wellington: Ministry of Justice. Moore, D. (1993) Shame, Forgiveness and Juvenile Justice, Criminal Justice Ethics 12, Winter-Spring, 3-25. Morris, A., and Maxwell, G. (1993) Juvenile Justice in New Zealand: A New Paradigm, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 26 (1), March, 72-90. Office of Crime Statistics and Research (OCSAR) (2004) Crime and Justice in SA 2002 – Juvenile Justice: A Statistical Report, Attorney-General’s Department. Royal Commission (1991) Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report. Commissioner Elliott Johnston. 5 vols. Canberra: AGPS. -------- (1994) Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 1993 Implementation report. South Australian Government, Department of State Aboriginal Affairs, April. Sarre, R. (1994) Uncertainties and Possibilities: A Discussion of Selected Criminal Justice Issues in Contemporary Australia, Adelaide: School of Law, University of South Australia. Sarre, R. (1999) Family Conferencing as a Juvenile Justice Strategy, The Justice Professional, 11(4), 259-271. Sarre, R. & Earle, K. (2004) Restorative Justice, in Sarre, R. and Tomaino, J. (eds) Key Issues in Criminal Justice, Adelaide: Australian Humanities Press, 144-165. Sherman, L. (2003) Reason for Emotion: Reinventing Justice with Theories, Innovations and Research, Criminology, 41(1), 1-37. Sherman, L., Strang, H., & Woods, D. (2000) Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), Australian National University. Strang, H. (2000) The Future of Restorative Justice, in Chappell, D., and Wilson, P. (eds) Crime and the Criminal Justice System in Australia: 2000 and Beyond. Sydney: Butterworths, 22-33. Strang, H., Barnes, G., Braithwaite, J. and Sherman, L. (1999) Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) Australian National University. Wundersitz, J. (1996a) Juvenile Justice, in Hazlehurst, K. (ed.) Crime and Justice: An Australian Textbook in Criminology. North Ryde, NSW: LBC. ——— (1996b) The SA Juvenile Justice System: A Review of Its Operation. Adelaide: Office of Crime Statistics, Attorney-General’s Department. Wundersitz, J., and Hetzel, S. (1996) Family Conferencing for Young Offenders: The South Australian Experience, in Hudson, J., Morris, A., Maxwell, G., and Galaway, B. (eds), Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Annandale: The Federation Press. The Missouri Division of Youth Services: In Their Own Words Frances P. Reddington* During the Impacting Juvenile Justice: The Intersection of Approaches conference held on the campus of Central Missouri State University in the spring of 2004, mention was made frequently of the Missouri Division of Youth Services. And for good reason. Doug Abrams in his presentation and article Lessons from Juvenile Justice in America refers to the history of the Missouri system. He describes a system, challenged with its own history of questionable practices, which has emerged as a “Guiding Light for Reform” (as deemed by the American Youth Policy Forum) in the recent past. He is not alone is his evaluation of the Missouri Division of Youth Services. In the spring 2003 volume of Advocasey, Dick Mendal’s article entitled Small is Beautiful: The Missouri Division of Youth Services is introduced with these words: “Since closing its large juvenile training schools 20 years ago, Missouri has become a model for the nation in juvenile corrections” (page 29). Mendal quoted Barry Krisberg, President of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency as stating, “I think it is a great system. More than any other state in the country, Missouri provides a positive, treatment-oriented approach that’s not punitive or prison-like” (page 30). As we organized the conference, we felt that we needed to involve the Missouri Division of Youth Services for two reasons. We wanted to give the Missouri Division of Youth Services a chance to tell us why they are emerging as the national leader in juvenile corrections as well as give the participants from difference states and countries a change to see what makes this program work. The Missouri Division of Youth Services presented a workshop at this conference. It was one of the most well attended and well received workshops on our program. Young people, past and present clients of the Missouri Division of Youth Services shared their life stories, goals and dreams with us. They discussed their past behaviors, present life and future aspirations. In addition, conference participants were offered the opportunity to take a tour of the Northwest Regional Youth Center outside of Kansas City. The Northwest Regional Youth Center houses up to thirty youth at one time. The youth housed there are serious offenders, although the facility does not have many trappings of a secure prison setting. After coming into the facility through security systems, we entered a lobby overstuffed with couches and chairs, walls decorated with murals, and a magnificent fountain. The atmosphere was warm and inviting. We toured the bunk filled sleeping quarters, classrooms, treatment rooms and living rooms. We saw classroom activities, shook many youths’ hands, and were introduced to some interesting classroom activities and projects. We ate in the cafeteria and were treated to many of the musical talents of the residents. It was truly a wonderful opportunity for us all, and especially appreciated by our guests from other countries. We did not want the Missouri Division of Youth Services contribution to this conference to go without celebration and appreciation. The Division of Youth Services helped us to put together this tribute to our young guests at the conference and to their counterparts throughout the state. Below we present thoughts about their lives – in their own words. YOU REMIND ME OF… You remind me of the sunset Drifting off to night You remind me of the feelings I get When I do something right You remind me of my big sister And how she is always by my side You remind me of a bunny That doesn’t run and hide You remind me of a book That’s full of my thoughts You remind me of a doctor That doesn’t like giving little kids shots You remind me of a baby deer So peaceful and so calm You remind me of a teenager Whose best friend is their mom You remind me of the word “No” When I am answering, “Do you want to get high?” But most of all you remind me of an angel That brightens up the sky! Miranda I CRY
I cry when there is no where to stand I cry because I can’t win I cry because of life’s price I have to spend I cry at night I cry even when I say I’m alright I cry when loved ones say goodbye I cry when people say I can’t stay I cry when it’s time to pray I cry because I don’t know my Dad I cry for that missing pat on my back I cry when those missed didn’t say goodbye These are the reasons I cry You can cry and not say goodbye Da’Misha CHILD INSIDE There’s a child inside me so fragile and weak There’s a child inside me with hurt that runs so deep There’s a child inside me that cried out for acceptance There’s a child inside me that fears rejection There’s a child inside me that longs to make one perfect connection There’s a child inside me that’s engulfed in depression There’s a child inside me with a heart so cold There’s a child inside me hidden and alone There’s a child inside me I can’t find There’s a child inside me that’s been left behind Matt A Look At The Total Child In The Juvenile Justice System Linda Bigby, Della Heidbrink Luaders, Linda Koehler, and Ann Powell-Brown* Thousands of youth are found guilty of crimes and incarcerated each year. Statistics on crime have consistently shown that poor academic achievement is a major factor in crime and delinquency (Robinson & Rapport, 1999; Archwamety, Tear, & Katsiyannis, 2000; Christle, Nelson, & Jolivette, 2003). In addition, a number of characteristics and issues have been associated with the youth offenders at-risk. Commonly associated are poor attendance, dropout rates, chronic disciplinary problems, and school failure. A number of demographics also are associated as well, which include but are not limited to the following: more males, prior history of violence, childhood abuse, substance abuse, more African Americans, more disabled youth. In fact, there is a disproportionate number of males, African Americans, and disabled among the youth offenders. Youth with disabilities are significantly over-represented in the juvenile system. Educational disabilities may significantly increase a juvenile’s involvement in crime and potential for incarceration. Yüklə 1,2 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|