New South Wales Juvenile Reoffending - Research Paper Example

Name Instructor Course Date New South Wales Juvenile Reoffending A crowd gathers to witness a bloody scene. The police just shot and arrested a group of youngsters, who were driving a stolen car. A female pedestrian lays injured, under the car. This is the scene that the public witnessed in April at the Kings Cross shooting. The driver of the car was 14 years old, and the ages of his friends in the car ranged between 14 and 24 years. This is just one of the innumerable cases of juvenile delinquency that police in New South Wales deal with on a daily basis. The offenders in this case were mixed in age. Taking this group as a sample and examining their records 15 years from this date, it is likely that those aged below 16 years will have another run in with the police during this period. Statistics show that juvenile offenders re-offend at a higher rate than their adult counterparts (Vinaendra & Fitzgerald, 12). Holmes (2) presents data from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research showing juvenile recidivism rates of up to 80%. Juvenile recidivism is a problem that costs the government millions of dollars each year (Cain1, 9). The seriousness of reoffending among the youth has caused the government to set targets of reducing reoffending rates by at least 10% by 2014 (Vignaendra, Viravong, Beard & McGrath, 434). Reducing recidivism rates requires an understanding of; why young offenders commit crimes in the first place, what makes them the most likely to reoffend and how likely to succeed the proposed measures are. This paper examines the factors that contribute to high juvenile recidivism rates, current assessment schemes for juvenile offenders and how successful they are, risks of juvenile reoffending, the impacts that juvenile reoffending has and suggests ways of reducing juvenile reoffending. Factors influencing juvenile reoffending Australian law classifies juvenile offenders as those falling between the ages of 10-16/17 years inclusive. Legal liability for acts committed cannot be imposed on children below the age of 10. Children in this age bracket are in their pre-teens and teens, and their actions are influenced by myriad factors. These factors also influence their involvement in criminal behaviour, and the likelihood of committing further crime later in life (Vinaendra & Fitzgerald, 12). Engaging in criminal behaviour in the context of this paper, includes first time and subsequent offenses (reoffending).This section of the paper examines the factors that influence the criminal tendencies of these young adults, and how the justice system treats them once they are caught. The impact that their actions have is also examined. Children are more susceptible to peer pressure at this age than at any other stage of their development. Peer pressure and influence is one of the leading causes of juvenile delinquency (Vinaendra & Fitzgerald, 13). Majority of young offenders who engage in minor offenses such as underage drinking, petty theft, graffiti, minor traffic offenses and other non-serious crimes do so in the company of friends. A young person who keeps the company of friends who engage in such acts is more likely to commit these offenses, than one who does not (Carcach & Leverett, 21). This is also the case when it comes to committing subsequent crimes. Once a young person has committed a crime and received a warning, caution, participated in a youth justice conference or has been dealt with in any other legal way and does not change his/her company, then this person is likely to reoffend. This is especially true if the initial offense had been as a result of peer influence. Youth offenders exhibit sporadic criminal behaviour. Many of the crimes committed by juvenile offenders are unplanned, and are only committed because an opportunity presented itself to the young offender (Carrington & Pereira, 56). For example, a lax security system at a shopping mall is likely to influence a young offender to engage in crime. An impromptu party or absence of adults at home is also likely to make a child to engage in underage drinking. Most minor offenders confess that they would probably not have committed the offense, had the opportunity not presented itself. It so happens that many past offenders fall for such opportunities and commit crimes, increasing the rates of juvenile reoffending (Carcach & Leverett, 17). The likelihood of being caught also influences a youngster’s decision whether to engage in criminal behaviour or not. Juvenile offenders are not experienced criminals, and they mainly engage in crimes that they think are unlikely to be found out. If the likelihood of being caught is high, a juvenile offender is more likely to abstain from the activity. This factor also has an impact on statistical data on reoffending rates among the youth. This is because thousands of juvenile crimes go undetected, thereby distorting the real figures of juvenile criminal offenses (Carcach & Leverett, 7). The type of crime is another factor that influences a young person’s criminal behaviour. Various studies have found out that the less serious an offense is, the more likely that the offender will commit it again. Other factors that have been found to affect criminal behaviour include, but are not limited to; level of schooling, family background and upbringing, moral beliefs, poverty, self control and discipline, drug and substance abuse, physical and mental health (Lynch, Buckman & Krenske, 2). The factors discussed above influence criminal behaviour in varying proportions, and differ with age, indigenous status and gender among others. Legal implications of juvenile criminal behaviour Young offenders are treated differently by the justice system. The criminal justice system has evolved over time, and developed measures to deal with juvenile offenders. They are not treated as harshly as adult offenders, though many factors are considered before deciding the best way to deal with a young offender. The law guides police, judicial officers and other persons involved in settling for a warning, caution, youth justice conference, court system, custodial sentence or youth conduct orders (Putnirjs, 6). The response of the justice system towards young offenders is biased towards restorative and rehabilitative measures. There are reasons why young offenders are treated differently from adult offenders and they include the following; Juvenile offenders are still in their development stages, and immaturity may be the cause of their criminal tendencies. The law recognizes that these young individuals can outgrow their delinquency as they age and, therefore, need to be rehabilitated. it is easier to reform the young offenders than adults, and this is why the legal system emphasizes restorative responses to juvenile criminal behaviour (Putnirjs, 3). Young offenders are not yet professional or specialized criminals. They are still in the process of learning the ropes in criminal behaviour. Furthermore, many of them only engage in periodic criminal activities and are not fully fledged criminals. There is, therefore, still a chance to save them from crime and restore them back to responsible behaviour. As they grow older, mature, change friends and develop their purpose in life, many juvenile delinquents abandon criminal behaviour (Vinaendra & Fitzgerald, 10). This is why every effort is made to rehabilitate them before they enter adulthood. Juvenile offenders are easy to spot and arrest. They are inexperienced in crime and do not cover their tracks very well. They often commit crimes in groups and do so in neighbourhoods near where they live or attend school. Once the police arrest a juvenile offender, the law stipulates how this offender should be dealt with, though some discretion is left to the officers involved. The Young Offenders Act (1997) establishes the legal framework under which juvenile offenders are treated after committing a crime. It creates and enhances the options of warnings and cautions in dealing with juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders who have committed minor offences often get away with a caution or warning from the police. They may also be recommended for youth justice conferences. The primary intention of these measures is to divert juvenile offenders from the formal criminal justice system. However, under certain circumstances, the offender may be taken through the formal court process. These are cases when the offence in question is of a serious nature, or considerable violence was involved (Putnirjs, 8). The New South Wales department of Juvenile Justice has a directorate that administers the Youth Justice Conferences. Candidates for these conferences are young offenders who have admitted to the offence in question, and show a willingness to go through the process. Conferences are conducted by trained personnel from the department, in the presence of the offender’s and victim’s families. Other interested parties may also be involved in the conferences. The aim of these conferences is to administer restorative justice. Issues of restitution to the victim/community are discussed, as well as the causes of the delinquency. The conferences are also held with the intention of finding ways of assisting the offender to abandon criminal behaviour, and reconcile the parties involved. Juvenile offenders, who successfully undergo this process, receive a warning or caution do not leave a criminal record (Smith & Jones, 7). A police officer may for various reasons decide that the offender should be subjected to a youth conduct order. This decision may also be made by a court of law after putting various factors into consideration. Youth conduct orders are used as a mechanism to control the offender’s conduct. They stipulate conditions that the offender must satisfy, with a view of limiting the influence of factors encouraging delinquent behaviour in the youngster. The orders are also aimed at rehabilitating the young offender and assisting him/her to overcome criminal tendencies. Such an order may require an offender to avoid the company of certain individuals, complete training programmes, attend school or engage in an array of constructive activities. A court cannot force an unwilling offender to comply with such an order, though it may be possible in the case of an offender who has confessed to the crime in question. Going through a trial and getting a custodial sentence is often the last resort when dealing with a juvenile offender (Drabsch, 5). A criminal record may significantly alter the life of a young person, and the legal system tries to avoid this by emphasizing solutions that do not leave a criminal record. However, the seriousness of a crime may warrant a criminal trial and custodial sentencing (Weatherbun, Sumitra & Andrew, 8). If the judicial officer is of the opinion that the presence of the offender endangers the society or the offender in any way, then a custodial sentence may be recommended. The primary intention of incarceration in such circumstances may be incapacitation. Being in custody restricts the actions of the offender and significantly reduces chances that he/she will reoffend, at least during the incarceration period. The other intention of a custodial sentence may be to deter prospective offenders from engaging in similar acts. This option undoubtedly leaves the young offender with a criminal record. New South Wales records one of the highest juvenile recidivism rates in Australia. Finding effective means of reducing these rates is a problem that plagues the NSW government and justice system. The above measures have had mixed results in the fight against juvenile reoffending. Their effectiveness in curbing the problem is affected by a number of factors. The age of the offender is one of these factors. The younger the offender is, the more likely he/she is to reoffend, and the reverse is true. Other factors include; environmental influences, change in government policy and personal attitudes among others. Approaches to juvenile offenders that divert them from the court system seem to be more effective than others. Vinaendra & Fitzgerald (22) present data from research findings showing that of all the juveniles who made a first appearance in court in the period between 1982- 86, almost 70% did not reoffend during the period of study. These were results of a research done by Coumaleros, who suggested that intrusive or harsh measures are not necessary to curb juvenile reoffending. The conclusion the researcher reached is that restorative and rehabilitative measures are more likely to be successful in preventing juvenile reoffending. There are conflicting opinions on the above, with some researchers suggesting that custodial sentences are more successful against juvenile reoffending. Weatherbun, Sumitra & Andrew (20) in their research suggest that custodial and noncustodial sentences have little difference in their outcome. However, this research was built on previous research, which had varying results. Those who suggest that young offenders who are incarcerated are more likely to offend support this contention by drawing on the criminogenic theory of incarceration. It is suggested that being in custody gives rise to hardened criminal behavior, and the young offender may learn new criminal habits and techniques from fellow inmates (Putnirjs, 7). The opposing school of thought suggests that being in prison reduces the chances that the offender will commit offences by restricting his/her activities. The problem with this contention is that this is only true for the duration of time that the offender is behind bars. The situation may be different when they are released into the society. The success of any of these methods is relative, and none can conclusively be said to be more effective than the other. This is because the information and research findings on which such a conclusion would be reached suggest different positions. Crimes most popular with juveniles Juvenile offenders usually commit crimes that are not complex and do not need detailed planning. This is because they have not yet developed to a stage where they can pull off such crimes. However, the occasional complex crimes still take place, mostly with the assistance of adult offenders. It is also unlikely that a juvenile offender will be arrested for a white collar offense such as money laundering. Their status in life does not give them such opportunities. The bulk of offenses committed by juveniles are property crimes. Petty theft, break and enter, vandalism, graffiti, arson, minor traffic offences, underage driving and car theft carry the highest percentage. Crimes against persons such as assault, homicide, battery, or sexual offences form a lower percentage of offences committed by young offenders. Violent crimes form an even lesser percentage. The trends are however, changing, with records of increased use of force, drug related crimes and at times, use of firearms in juvenile offences. These trends and statistics change with gender and sex. Statistics from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research are presented by Holmes (2). These are the most recent statistics, revised in January 2012. These statistics show the percentages of long term reoffending rates, reoffending for the same crime, and the disparities in gender bases statistics. The statistics are based on data collected from conviction records from 1994-2009. A shocking revelation is made by the numbers presented. Of the juveniles convicted for various crimes in 1994, 80% of these have reoffended and been convicted during this period. Reoffending rates were higher in years soon after the reference crime was committed. Within the first year since the first offense reoffending rates were 40%, 2 years later, it was at 15% and 7% in the subsequent years. 1t should be noted that for purposes of clarity that, offenders who had committed the reference offence as juveniles and later committed an offense as adults, were treated as juvenile offenders for the statistics. The statistics presented in this part of the paper are from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Juveniles who were reconvicted for property offences between 1994 and 2009 were the highest numbers. Reconvictions for unlawful entry were 85%, robbery was 84%, property damage 83%, theft 79% and traffic related offenses 75%. Disorderly conduct seems to be the most popular crime among juveniles. It had the highest reoffending rate among all crimes, at 86%. Drunk driving came in at 70% while fraud and related offenses recorded a 62% reoffending rate. Offences involving drugs, regulated and prohibited weapons or explosives seem to be popular among the youth. The reoffending rate for these crimes during this period was 80%, much higher than drunk driving, traffic related offences and theft. Crimes against the person are not committed in large numbers by young offenders. The highest reoffending rate among these was assault, which registered a reoffending rate of 81%. Harassment, abduction and other crimes against the person did not register any reoffending at all. The Bureau also recorded no reoffending for crimes of a sexual nature among the youth during this period. The statistics above show a preference for crimes against property, underage alcohol consumption, and little involvement in crimes against persons. There are reasons that can explain these trends in juvenile criminal tendencies. Crimes such as petty thefts, shoplifting, break and enter are relatively easy to carry out, and are often carried out in the company of others. Juvenile offenders rely heavily on opportunities, and these are crimes for which there is plenty of opportunity. The increased accessibility to weapons may be the reason behind an increase in juvenile use of regulated weapons. Accessibility to information and technology through the internet and other sources has increased knowledge on how to make explosives among the youth. This explains why juvenile offenders are increasingly using improvised explosives when committing crimes. The statics present evidence that law enforcers should be worried about the trends in juvenile reoffending. Crimes that register high reoffending rates should be a cause for concern. Law enforcers should be particularly concerned about the high reoffending rate in crimes involving explosives and prohibited weapons. One would expect that the difficulty in accessing these weapons, especially because of the age and financial restrictions, would deter the youth from recommitting these crimes. This is, however, not the case. The fact that young persons are able to access these weapons and explosives and reoffend at such rates shows that there is a problem larger than the commission of the offence in existence. The authorities should be more vigilant so as to find out if these youngsters are aided by adults in the commission of these crimes. The possibility that juvenile offenders may be recruited into terrorist organizations should also be examined. The use of explosives is mainly associated with terrorists, and the accessibility of explosives to the youth should be monitored to avert serious consequences later. Analysis of resources The bulk of resources used for this research were journal articles and a few books. National statistics were also consulted to provide the numbers used in the paper. The majority of the journal articles used are presentations of research findings on the topic, by different researchers. Vignaendra and Fitzgerald (1-26) undertook a research focusing on the reoffending rates among juveniles who had been cautioned by police or participated in Youth Justice Conference in the year 1999. These persons’ conduct for the next 15 years was studied. The researchers found that those who received cautions recorded a reoffending rate of 48%, while the reoffending rate for those who participated in the conferences was 52%. These rates were found to be higher than those recorded from offenders who went direct to the court process before being subjected to the diversionary measures. The research findings also suggested that these rates are influenced in varying degrees by sex, the nature of the initial offence, age and indigenous status. Vignaendra, Viravong, Beard & McGrath (1-34) conducted their research on juvenile reoffending from a different perspective than that adopted by most researchers. The difference came in their approach to measures of recidivism. They concentrated with the intention to reoffend, as opposed to other factors such as re arrests and reconviction records. Their study was carried out through interviews, and the questions that the offenders answered provided an assessment of their intention to reoffend or likelihood of reoffending. The research findings presented suggests that there exist different classes of recidivists, distinguished by their declared intention to reoffend. The researchers found that the intention to reoffend was influenced by factors such as; family background and upbringing, treatment by the justice system, experiences while in incarceration, and feelings of disfranchisement among others. Richards (1-42) examines the factors that distinguish juvenile offenders from adults who commit crimes. He also looks at the different ways in which the law treats juvenile offenders and their adult counterparts. Among the reasons he lists for the differentiated treatment are the immaturity of juvenile offenders and the ease with which they can be rehabilitated. The article concludes that the justice system should put the different needs and capacities of the young offenders into consideration when employing measures to reduce juvenile reoffending. Such factors include; age, sex, physical and mental health, and intellectual capacity. Luke & Lind (1-56) studied juvenile reoffending among juveniles who participated in youth conferences and those who went through the court system. Their findings indicate a 15-20% decrease in reoffending rates among those who participated in conferences. The results of the study on those who went to court are similar to those of Vignaendra and Fitzgerald (23). Both findings indicate a higher reoffending rate among those who went to court than those who were subjected to diversion measures such as conferences, cautions or youth conduct orders. There are conflicting reports from researchers on the effect of incarceration on juvenile reoffending rates. Weatherbun, Sumitra & Andrew (16) suggest that there is no significant difference between offending rates of those who receive custodial sanctions and those who are diverted from the court system. Others such as Snowball (12) and Cain2 (22) argue that reoffending rates are higher among offenders who are incarcerated. Factors can be used to explain the divergence in opinion. The methods employed when conducting research, the samples used, change of government policy or practices among judicial officers are just but a few. Smith & Jones (1) employed the Group Risk Assessment Model to study recidivism rates among different groups. The model adjusts to the characteristics of the group under study, so as to give an accurate projection of the recidivism rates. The conclusion that Smith & Jones (24) reached is that age, sex and indigenous status of the offender all had a role in the likelihood that the offender would reoffend. This influence, however, varied as these factors changed. Additional factors were examined by Cacach & Leverett, (19). These researchers studied a group of juvenile offenders who had made a court appearing between 1992 and 1993. The research findings suggest that the age at which the young offender first appeared in court has a bearing on the amount of time that will pass before he/she reoffends. Offenders below the age of 14 years reoffended sooner, while older offenders were found to reoffend after considerable time had passes. Cain1 (19) on the other hand, found that poor education, social marginalization, family breakdown and poverty are factors likely to pull a youngster back into criminal behavior. These resources, among others that were used for this paper look at recidivism through different lenses. The recidivism rates provided in the different articles are based on records of re arrests, court reappearances and convictions. However, Vignaendra, Viravong, Beard & McGrath (20) fault this point of view and suggest why it may not present accurate statistics on recidivism rates. They argue that rates based on convictions, re arrest or court appearance records may be distorted by various factors. Convictions or re arrests may change over time, due to changes in; increased vigilance in the police force, an increase in law enforcement officers and government policy at a particular time. Many re offenders may not be arrested, and some of those who are arrested may not b convicted for lack of evidence or technicalities during the trial. All these may distort the rates of reoffending which are based on these factors. Reoffending rates based on the intention to reoffend, however, avoid all these irregularities and have a higher chance of accuracy. The information collected during this study suggests that harsh measures are unlikely to succeed in keeping recidivism rates down. Adopting measures that emphasize restoration and rehabilitation are more likely to be effective. For this reason, the writer strongly recommends that law enforcers should encourage reformative programmes when dealing with juvenile offenders. Supervisory programmes such as the youth conduct orders should also be increased as they have been proved to be more effective in curbing the problem of juvenile reoffending than criminal procedures and custodial sentences. Conclusion Some researchers have suggested that juvenile recidivism is not a problem of catastrophic magnitude. However, statistics show that it is of significant concern, and there is need to adopt effective measures to curb it. Recidivism rates are higher among juvenile offenders than adult offenders. The fact that young offenders have the capacity to be rehabilitated, it is important to focus on measures that are restorative and rehabilitative in dealing with them. The success of current assessment schemes is debatable and different writers have expressed varying opinions on the same. However, there seems to be consensus on the effectiveness of non custodial and diversion schemes in reducing juvenile recidivism rates. Works Cited Cain, Michael1 1996, “Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders in NSW.” NSW Department of Juvenile Justice. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Cain, Michael2 1997, An Analysis of Juvenile Recidivism. PDF File. 3 June 2012. < http://www.aic.gov.au/events/.../1997/~/media/conferences/juvenile/cain.pd.> Carcach, Carlos & Simon Leverett 1999, “Juvenile Offending: Specialization or Versatility.” Australian Institute of Criminology. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Carrington, Kerry & Margaret Pereira. Offending Youth: Sex, Crime and Justice. (2010). Federation Press. Drabsch, Talina 2006, Reducing the Risk of Recidivism. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Holmes, Jesse 2011, “Re-offending in NSW.” NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Luke, Garth & Brownyn Lind 2002, “Reducing Juvenile Crime: Conferencing Versus Court.”Crime and Justice Bulletin. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Lynch, Mark, Julianne Buckman & Leigh Krenske 2003, “Youth Justice: Criminal Trajectories.” Australian Institute of Criminal Justice. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Putnirjs, A, “Assessing Recidivism Risk Among Young Offenders.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 38.3 (2005): 324-339. Print. Richard, Kelly 2011, “What Makes Juvenile Offenders Different From Adult Offenders?” Australian Institute of Criminology. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Smith, Nadine & Craig Jones 2008. “Monitoring Trends in Reoffending Among Adult and Juvenile Offenders Given Non-custodial Sanctions.” Crime and Justice Bulletin. PDF File. Snowball, Lucy 2008, “Diversion of Indigenous Juvenile Offenders.” Australian Institute of Criminology. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Vinaendra, Sumitra & Jacqueline Fitzgerald 2006, Reoffending Among Young People Cautioned by Police or Who Participated in a Youth Justice Conference. PDF File. 3 June 2012. Vignaendra, Sumitra, Ammata Viravong, Gravis Beard & Andrew McGrath. “Reducing Juvenile Reoffending by Understanding Factors Contributing to Intention to Reoffend.” Current issues in criminal justice 22(3) 2011: 433-455. Print. Weatherbun, Don, Vignaendra Sumitra & McGrath Andrew 2009, “The Specific Deterrent Effect of Custodial Penalties on Juvenile Reoffending.” Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice. PDF File. 3 June 2012. < http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/3/D/%7BA3DB5DEB-2A53-4272-87CF-CE510D13481B%7Dtbp33.pdf> Read More