Counsellor & Psychotherapist
Masters of Counselling & Psychotherapy UofA
Member of the ACA College of Supervisors
Level 3 Member Australian Counselling Association
The Queensland Government has introduced new reforms dramatically change the baseline principles of youth sentencing by:
1. removing the requirement of detention as a last resort;
2. 'naming and shaming' repeat youth offenders, by publishing their names;
3. adding a new offence for breaching bail with a maximum of one year's detention;
4.making all juvenile criminal histories available in adult courts; and
5.transferring juvenile offenders to adult correctional centres when they reach 17 years of age if they have six or more months of their sentence remaining.
Do you think this is the right approach given that recidivist offenders are typically characterised by low socio-economic status, low educational attainment, mental health problems, substance abuse problems, and not infrequently, have been subject to physical abuse and neglect?
If they are repeat offenders then yes, I do think they should be named. If it is a first offence, then no. As for 17 year olds being moved to adult prisons, I think they should wait until 18. And showing past offences to adult courts only seems sensible to me, because it shows a pattern of behaviour, and is important to be aware of the person's past.
I agree with Bryony. For repeat offenders, I think that they should be named, but for first offenders, I don't think that it is necessary as some youngsters can just be foolish or succumb to peer pressure that lands them in hot water. I don't have extensive knowledge of the prison system, but I would have thought 18 is a more suitable age for an adult prison. I didn't know that juvenile offences weren't available to adult courts, I think that they possibly should be if there is a strong history of a certain behaviour as this could likely assist in appropriate sentencing and course of action. Those dealing with health problems such as mental health or abuse issues, should also have this taken into account, in deciding upon the appropriate course of retribution. Treatment facilities may well be the better option.
I just wonder if such a punitive approach is a pathway to rehabilitation?
If the recidivism is due the above reasons would it not be better to address these issues rather than throw them into institutions? In these places it is proven that there is further education of an anti-social kind.
Children who act out in such an anti social ways I believe are victims and I am not sure that when a child is that angry and disadvantaged that isolating them even further from society will get us to the outcome that we are looking for.
Perhaps there is a way that doesn't involve wrecking their entire life? Not sure what that looks like but I think it would be a good discussion for society to have. After all they are human beings and I was always told that where there is life there is hope, and it concerns me that society is prepared to write someone off who is so young. Please don't think that I don't believe in consequences for their actions as I do, but I think we could be more creative in addressing this with the view of rehabilitation not incarceration.
Yes, I believe it is appropriate,.
If they do the crime, and they do not do the time which juveniles dont seem to, why not -if it is a deterrent in any way, then bring it on.
There is far too much juvenile crime.
NO. Brains don't mature untill 23, so lock them away for repeat offenses, but after the age of 23 they should be made fully accountable for their actions. I think you should only name and shame people who are a danger to society.