By: Kai Kim

Kai Kim — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:53:28 +0000

I agree that issues around youth crime, like all other crimes, are complex and multi-dimensional which requires systemic and long term intervention to address. Simply “being tough on crime” is not even close to a solution. Schokman (2013) in his work for the Human Rights Law Centre reports that youth crime can only be addressed by examining the causes of crime, such as social and economic disadvantage, rather than simply imprisoning all individuals. Since the election of the Liberal National Party (LNP) to office in Queensland in 2012, there has been numerous youth policies and amendments passed embedded in an ideology of being tough on youth crime. Of course, the example of this are the amendments made to the Youth Justice Act 1992 (s.22) regarding youth justice conferencing (YJC). The amendments removed the ability for courts to refer matters to YJC.
Substantial literature argues that the two most dominating traditional approaches to criminal offenses, retributive justice processes, and rehabilitation or treatment processes, are not successful in reducing recidivism, but often increase the likelihood of further criminal activity (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). These two processes focus on the punishment and rehabilitation of the offender but they neglect the needs of the victims as victims have a minimal role in the traditional criminal justice processes. However, in contrast to the retributive and rehabilitation process, restorative justice is an approach that involves all the people most directly affected by the offense, including offender, victim and community, in a problem solving process designed to repair the harm caused by the offender in a collaborative rather adversarial manner (Duncan & Dickie, 2013; Marshall, 1996). In fact, 80 to 90 percent of participants of Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) report being satisfied with the process; 90 percent of the meetings resulted in restitution agreements, and 80 to 90 percent of these restitution agreements have been reported as completed (Umbreit, Coates & Vos, 2001).
Therefore, the policy changes should be reversed as they are not cohesive to youth wellbeing and restorative justice. Existing police referrals can be problematic as their first point of contact with young people can focus on law enforcement at the cost of addressing their underlying issues, social justice principles, and long term support options. Further, there is no guarantee that police officers will discuss YJC as an alternative to court proceedings, highlighting a need for consistency, training and standardisation for referral.
Bradshaw, W., & Roseborough, D. (2005). Restorative justice dialogue: the impact of mediation and conferencing on juvenile recidivism. Federal Probation, 69(2), 15-21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview /213978039
Duncan, S. H., & Dickie, I. (2013). Family group conferencing: A pilot project within the juvenile court system in Louisville, Kentucky. The Prevention Researcher, 20(1), 11-14. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ps/i.do?action= interpret&id=GALE%7CA323659471&v=2.1&u=qut&it=r&p=HRCA&sw=w&authCount=1
Schokman, B. (2013). Proposed Queensland youth justice reforms: right questions, wrong answers. Human Rights Law Centre. Retrieved from http://hrlc.org.au/proposed-queensland-youth-justice-reforms-right-questions-wrong-answers/
Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Vos, B. (2001). The impact of victim-offender mediation: Two decades of research. Federal Probation, 65(3), 29-35.

Comments on: Young and the restless: Queensland’s youth justice reform

By: Kai Kim