Youth Offenders in Australia - Case Study Example

Youth Offenders in Australia and Government Responses for Addressing Delinquency

Introduction

Fear of violent crime or any form of offense is higher in the 21st century than in previous decades, which might be associated with the easy availability of firearms, alcohol, or substance abuse. While most offenders are assumed to be adults, young people are also involved in criminal cases. Based on police statistics, approximately 49,000 young offenders were reported from 2018 to 2019 in Australia (Adams et al., 2019). Such a report means that in every 100,000 Australian youths, 2000 are offenders, ranging from ten to seventeen years. Primary offence types in these cases include homicides, extortion, sexual assaults, illicit drugs, fraud, possession of dangerous weapons and explosives, property damage, cybersecurity, and acts intending to cause injury to other people. The present paper focuses on various types of young offenders across Australia. The article will also analyze government responses in addressing juvenile offenders.

Youth Offenders In Australia

Thousands of young Australians commit crimes intentionally and unintentionally, which lands them to different levels of juvenile crime institutions. Government response to minor cases depends on various factors such as the offenders' age, nature of the crime, sex, and many others, as emphasized in the present analysis. For instance, youth sexual offenders aged 12 to 24 undergo sanctions under the juvenile justice policy (Blackley & Bartels, 2018). In this case, the offenders can be subjected to community-based or non-supervised orders. Others are put in detention and support programs, and the juvenile justice system determines this. Notably, reports show that youth offenders are more likely to re-offend later in life, which means the government requires advanced measures to address juvenile delinquency (Adams et al., 2019).

Types of Youth Offenders in Australia and Government Responses

Juvenile offences exhibit patterns of behaviours based on the causes of action and the social context. The youth offences can be in the form of group-supported, individual, or situational delinquency depending on their nature. Besides, response measures to the Australian youth offending are categorized into three types based on the justice system (Adams et al., 2019). First, there are crimes committed explicitly by minors, and juvenile court systems address these. Second, some offences are only illegal with children, and this includes possession of weapons or alcohol. Finally, youths involved in criminal behaviours are corrected under criminal justice laws.

Group-Supported Youth Offenders (Australian Indigenous Youths)

Offenders engage in crime in companionship with other people of the same culture or geographical location. Currently, indigenous youths are the leading offenders' group based on the Australian justice system reports (Hage & Fellows, 2018). The high prevalence of delinquency among the indigenous juveniles has been an important topic of concern not only among Australian criminologist but also beyond the nation. Common offences conducted by the indigenous youths include crime with violence and intentional acts resulting in physical injury to humans, and this is often a collective behavior in this cultural group. Research shows indigenous youths are 17 times more under criminal justice supervision than other groups (Hage & Fellows, 2018). Although indigenous juveniles occupy the smallest percentage in the nation's total population, they have a higher representation of 48 percent in the justice supervision systems (Hage & Fellows, 2018).

Indigenous representation is even higher in the detention facilities as they occupy more than half of the detained group. Before government response towards indigenous delinquency, it is critical to understand the primary cause of the indigenous over-representation in the criminal or juvenile justice institutions (Adams et al., 2019). Such a higher prevalence of this youth group is associated with the complex economic and social reasons. Unlike other youth offenders, the indigenous group’s actions may be challenging for the government to solve because the causing factors are deeply rooted in the Aboriginals community. Lack of proper formal education acts as the breeding ground for the harmful behaviors among the indigenous youths, which may explain why they are over-represented in the justice system. The younger population in the indigenous community has experienced social transformation through colonialism and the loss of culture (La Macchia, 2016).

Generally, indigenous youths’ over-representation of delinquency can be understood in two levels, mainly the delinquency pattern and the measures applied in the justice system. In this case, the indigenous youths are likely to land in serious crimes, which fall them to supervision units or courts compared to other communities. Aboriginal culture is highly associated with domestic violence and sexual assaults in their community, a factor that often adversely influences the younger generation (Adams et al., 2019). Thus, youths in such a society are more likely than other juveniles to engage in offending issues leading to imprisonment and severe sanctions in the justice system.

Over-policing the indigenous neighborhoods is another major factor contributing to a higher number of aboriginal youths in the criminal justice units (La Macchia, 2016). There are higher probabilities for youth offenders to come in contact with authorities while in an offending manner. The community is often assumed to be a threat in society; thus, youths are quickly accused of severe and minor offenses (La Macchia, 2016). Over-representation of youth offenders across the Aboriginals does not mean other communities are less offensive. The fact remains indigenous people are socially disadvantaged, whereby they have low accessibility to legal support, unlike the typical Australian nationalities.

Moreover, over-representation is associated with the underlying factors resulting in the pattern in both offenses and government measures. The current factors leading to a high population of indigenous youth offenders and their representation in the justice facilities are based on colonialism effects (La Macchia, 2016). Systematic racism is an excellent example of underlying issues among the Aboriginals, and this affects their youths. In many cases, there is disempowerment and lost autonomy in society, and all this is based on racial status.

Indigenous youths are treated differently on account of their social and poor economic status. As a result of such marginalization experiences, the children often develop deep anger leading to violence and breaking of a law. History of culture dispossession and destruction is also overwhelmingly a contributing factor to criminal involvement since youths are socially, mentally, and economically straining (Adams et al., 2019). The indigenous youth offenders may not reduce if the government fails to address the emphasized underlying factors.

Government Response to the Delinquency

Detention and diversion are the most applied responses in the indigenous community (Hage & Fellows, 2018). In the detention approach, offenders are responsible for their actions; thus, they are subjected to punishment to prevent the potential adverse effect. While severe penalties during detention are expected to reduce reoffending, empirical studies challenge this assumption. The use of tough sanctions on indigenous youth offenders is often ineffective because they lead to stigmatizing effect. Youths are mentally affected when associated with court labels or any criminal justice institutions. Instead of amending their actions, youth offenders become mentally unstable and may engage in substance abuse, thus causing more offenses.

Detention response is criminogenic among the indigenous youths, which means it promotes more offending behaviors in this society. Prisons act as a learning school of crime for indigenous children because they are exposed to advanced offending strategies from other serial offenders. Notably, younger offenders are easily influenced by older peers in prisons, meaning the government should reform policies on responding to indigenous youth crimes (Hage & Fellows, 2018). Detention might effectively work for other groups, especially mature typical Australians, but does not correct the underlying factors in the Aboriginals community. Offending behaviors may be an outcome of a dysfunctional society, poverty, mental health, or substance abuse, and these should require a different response from detention (Adams et al., 2019). Therefore, the government needs to reform policies to respond to young offenders in indigenous populations and any other group with similar experiences.

Individual Delinquency (Sex and Age)

Delinquency in this category involves one person, and the offending behaviors may stem from defective family interactions, mental health issues, or any other causing factor. Although both sexes are involved in offending actions in Australia, male youths have a higher representation in the justice system. In the last three years, approximately 83 percent of youth offenders across Australia have been males, which leads to their more top representation in government supervision or under justice facilities (Farsang & Kocsor, 2016). Based on such statistics, young men are four times higher to commit an offense than girls in a day. According to research, young males regularly engage in violent crimes, sexual assaults, and unnecessarily physical confrontations. These offenses are associated with the perceived physical strength and social pressure in young men developing into adults. For instance, most cases involve 13 to 17-year-old men, whereby 16 aged ones occupy the highest percentage (Farsang & Kocsor, 2016). For many decades, researchers have focused on the individual crime gap between young males and females because it is based on many factors.

The crime gap between the two genders is influenced by cultural and social forces that explain their particular individual behaviors. Girls are physically and socially limited to committing crimes than boys, which explains females' lower percentage of offending behaviors. (Malvaso, Delfabbro & Day, 2017). For instance, social gender roles accustomed to girls often prevent them from being aggressive and vocal in the community. Regardless of western influence, young females are assumed to be submissive, an act that hinders them from violent crimes. Biologically, females and males encounter different development transformations whereby boys get more masculine. Girls develop feminine traits, and all this explains the crime gap in the two sexes. Males have the sensitive nature of trying new experiences, and their impulse control is lower, thus, higher involvement in criminal behaviors.

Government Responses

In all jurisdictions, juvenile offenders, especially non-indigenous girls, and boys, are treated less harshly than other criminals. In this case, the government considers detention as the last option for correcting behaviors, and this is why every territory or state offers diversion of youth offenders. For instance, some young male or female offenders who engage in crimes resulting from social pressure can be taken to the restorative justice facilities (Richards, 2010). Other offenders influenced by substance abuse or mental health instabilities are put in a specialty court system and others in restorative justice groups. Government responses vary in states whereby measures in Queensland are different from all other territories.

In Queensland, juvenile offenders aged from 17 years are treated as adults, which means their punishments are based on criminal justice systems (Hage & Fellows, 2018). According to Queensland State, young offenders range from 10 to 16 years for both males and females, while other territories consider 17 years old as a youth (Sheehan & Reed, 2017). For many decades, male juveniles record a higher percentage in detention centers than women. Generally, the number of female offenders has declined by more than 70 percent to those in restorative and specialty groups. Based on this report, it means detentions are also less effective in correcting non-Indigenous young offenders. Currently, most offenders, both males, and females are under supervision in the majority of territories, and this effectively helps in identifying the underlying factors influencing offending practices. Some monitoring is done through community programs, while others in the justice system promote a collective understanding of the interventions for young people's behaviors.

Situational Delinquency (Socio-Economic Position and Health Issues)

Offending behaviors from young people is highly related to their circumstances, and they are more susceptible to risks if they come from an economically challenged background. The majority of youth offenders and those in correctional facilities have earlier encountered adverse experiences either at home, school, or around the close family (VCOSS, 2017). For instance, some children have been exposed to an unfortunate and traumatizing lifestyle whereby parents neglect them. As a result of poverty, youths develop survival strategies, and this may include robbery with violence. Such experiences can be emotionally and morally draining, making children vulnerable to any form of crime in society. A recent study in 2015 shows 63 percent of youth offenders in Australia are victims of neglect, trauma, abuse, and all this falls under socio-economic forces (VCOSS, 2017). Such offenses are situational since the underlying factors were beyond the offenders’ control.

Based on the justice systems, youths from geographically remote and economically struggling areas occupy a higher percentage in supervision units. On an average day, children from low-income families are likely to be under supervision than youths from affluent homes. Arguments on socio-economic disadvantages in terms of youth crimes differ among experts. Some research claims the economic challenges that adversely affect the community's ability to control social practices among the people. While this might be appropriate, the stress and trauma associated with financial struggles can limit parents to offer the required discipline to children. As a result, such geographical areas may normalize harmful behaviors, thus, influencing young people.

Government responses to situational-based offenses in Australia have not been effective because states focus on supervision and detention. Situational cases can only be controlled if the root causes are solved, and this includes improving the lifestyles of the affected communities (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, 2016). For instance, children who are victims of neglect should have a protection policy by providing shelter and care. Also, youths from poor homes require educational exposure, which can also help transform their morals.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Youth offending is a serious issue, but it seems to receive less attention in the Australian government. The present article analyzed different categories of youth offenders reported in Australia, and this falls into situational cases, individual and group-supported offenses. Indigenous youth offenders are an excellent example of group-supported delinquency as their behaviors result from cultural and socio-political forces, and this includes the effects of colonialism and systematic racism. Situational offenses are associated with socio-economic circumstances, while the individual emphasizes sexes' experiences as they transform into adults. Although the government should focus on the fundamental forces influencing offending behaviors in every category, all youths offenders require more advanced responses. This paper recommends for implementation of therapeutic models in all justice systems for youths. In this case, the government should provide an adequate transitional platform for all youth offenders, depending on their situation's nature. For instance, traumatized children should have a platform with well-qualified practitioners to interact and transform behaviors.