An Overview of Juvenile Detention in Australia †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Overview of Juvenile Detention in Australia. Answer: When an adult commits a crime, they are sent to jail for the crime, as it is assumed that an adult has the full knowledge of the consequences of indulging in such criminal activity. But can the same be stated for a person who is not an adult? This is probably the reason why the children are not given jail time when it comes to a crime committed by them. But this raises a question about the juveniles. In Australia, such juveniles are sent to detention centres, where the aim is to improve them, instead of punishing them for the crimes done by them, particularly due to the petty nature of such crimes in most of the cases (Bochenek 2015). However, if the reports are to be believed, such detention centres leaves the child more damaged than before and even assures the path of criminal activities in majority of cases (Oaten Bardon 2017). This essay focuses on highlighting the position regarding the need of abolishing the use of detention for the juveniles. This would be done by showing tha t not only is the detention a costly affair, but also leaves the juvenile more prone to criminal activities. The history of juvenile detention can be traced by the arrival of first fleet in Australia. The convicts in this first fleet included two girls and three boys, who were under the age of 16. From those days of 1788 to the present day, the nexus of control over the juveniles is constantly shifting in between the private and the public sector. With the growth of the private sector, in the involvement of juvenile corrections at the present day, an issue has been placed over the agenda of such detention centres owing to the ignored focus towards the needs of such juveniles, to simply attaining grants from the government. The shift has been made from the government being focused on improving the future of the juveniles to being focused on paying the money to get the same done from the private entities, who in turn are just interested in getting government grants. The real focus over the needs of juvenile is lost in this interplay (OConnor Cameron 2001, p. 211). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or UNCRC is a human rights treaty, which covers the rights of the children with regards to civil, cultural, social, and economic and health aspects. Child, under this convention covers any person below the age of 18 (OHCHR 2017). Under Article 37 of the UNCRC, the children are not to be subjected to degraded or inhumane treatment. This article requires the child to be treated with humanity and their respect to be upheld at all times (UK Parliament 2009). However, the juvenile detention centres fail to do so. The juvenile detention centres fail to be rehabilitative instead of being punitive, as the majority of juveniles, particularly the Aboriginals are left more damaged than they were before they had been incarcerated. As per the evidence presented by the Royal Commission, serious concerns are raised regarding the unacceptable standards of conduct, the inappropriate and unlawful practices and the unsuitable methods of dealing with the detainees in the juvenile detention centres (Everingham 2016). It has been noted that the juvenile centres had failed the young people, who had the right of living safely, and also failed the residents of the states, as by increasing the likelihood of such juveniles reoffending, the safety of residents of such states has been raised. The report also acknowledged the raised concerns of the public regarding the youth violence and crime and stated that the detention centres were failing in reducing the reoffending. The intergenerational trauma was blamed upon for the high rates of youth incarceration; and the issue of tough bail conditions and the lack of more diversionary programs were also highlighted as the factors contributing to the failed system (Aikman 2017). As per the reports, a teen offender could be sent to a major public school at the price of 11,000 pounds for each year. And for sending the same teenager to a detention centre, there is a need to pay 20,000 pounds for each year, where the student gets to learn nothing educational; and only gains understanding on the new manners in which serious crime can be committed, which proves to be neither economical, nor humane. The costly and unrehabilitative qualities of the detention centres have led to the need of abolishing the detention for people who are below the age of eighteen (Atkinson 2017). A better alternative is to send them to a school, where they would learn more and can also gather skills, which could help them in shaping their feature. This is particularly true where the individuals are taught livelihood earning skills, which would help them in sustaining themselves in future, apart from improving the life of others, if they so wish to do. However, the Northern Territory expo sure of juvenile centre highlighted the national disgrace, where the children were shown to be abused (Farrell Davidson 2016) As per Barns (2010), there is an immediate need of rethinking the juvenile detention, even when no one wants to discuss this. Juveniles are young people and children, between the ages of 10 to 18, and these people are locked in jails which are given the name of detention centre by the Australian Government. During the time frame of 2007-2008, around 3,400 juveniles were incarcerated in the detention centres across the nation. They are deprived of their liberty, all thanks to the juvenile justice system, where the judges and the magistrates are given the right of sentencing the offenders till they attain the age of 17/18, to detention centres, depending upon the jurisdiction. As per the reports of Victorian Ombudsman, the youth detention facility, which was located a few kilometres from the heart of Melbourne, was extremely unhygienic and also overcrowded, and the situation of this centre was beyond repair (Nader Willingham 2010). There was death of a young detainee in Tasmania in 20 10 in the youth detention centre of the state (ABC News 2010). Such high profiled cases are just an example, which reflect on the questions regarding jailing a person who is in their tender and vulnerable years of growth. By putting the juveniles behind the razor wires is not the correct manner of protecting the community and it also fails in bringing down the chances of such individuals reoffending. There are high chances of recidivism, where the ones incarcerated in such detention centres are more likely to reoffend within two year period of their release; statistically, this figure is over 50%. And when the figure of the juveniles graduating from juvenile detention centres to adult prisons is seen, the percentage shoots up to 70% in some states. Even though the juvenile justice centres are used by the courts as a mean of protecting the young offenders, who have been charged with a particular offence; but these are more likely used for such offenders who have no constant accommodation (Barns 2010). On an average day of a casual year, around 600 juveniles are locked in such detention centres, who are on remand, and who await trial. These figures are scandalous, particularly when these 2010 figures are compared to the figures of June quarter of 2016 (Barns 2010). In the June quarter of 2016, 57% of the young people present in detention centre, based on an average night, were un-sentenced (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017). This shows the apathetic situation which is just escalating. This is particularly because the same is occurring in the developed world society of Australia, where the government has failed in building and funding hostels, homes, and the relevant supporting accommodations, which could allow this young people to not be languished in jail cells, particularly where they are innocent defendants. This is immoral, not only in the context of such innocent lives, but also in context of the taxpayers, who are being ripped off (Barns 2010). As per Mission Australia, putting the juveniles in custody was not only an expensive thing to do, but was also ineffective. It was highlighted that more than half of the individuals who were released from the detention centres, were going to re-offend. This shows that the detention brings forth another problem of providing greater support once these juveniles are released in the society (Barns 2010). As the detention does not stop the juveniles from reoffending upon being released from such centres, the question is raised on whether the half a billion dollar spent on such individuals each year could be instead used for more valuable interventional programs or other alternatives (O'Leary 2016). Of course, when the argument is raised that there is a need to abolish such juvenile centres, an argument is raised on the need of the community to be protected from such miscreants. So, there would always be a need for a ruthless 14 year old to be held in some form, where he has brutally murdered his own mother, and has a history of resorting to violence. There is no doubt a priority of the community being safe, but can a detention centre ensure that such a child would improve? A child who has been already through tough time, and has resorted to violence, could he improve in a hostile setting, which is presently the norm in the juvenile detention centres across the nation. The answer is no and there is a high probability of such an individual reoffending as soon as he is released from such centre (Barns 2010). The need is not here to put the juveniles behind high walls and high wire fences but there is a need for a residential kind of facility. This facility needs to have expert psychologists and skill providers, who can shape the future of such juveniles. An example can be taken from Missouri, USA, where there is an existence of a leading edge practice in this regard. The state has an evolved system of small children centred residential facility, which is often located within a radius of 75 miles of home of juveniles (Soler, Shoenberg Schindler 2009). The climate provided at such facilities is vastly different from the detention centres present in the nation. The juveniles at this centre are given their own clothes, they are given facilities which look like schools, instead of a prison system, and the dorms are decorated with the art work of the students and the furniture resembles one at their home. More importantly, they are not left to live behind barbed wires, which allow the trouble d youth to change their direction towards a criminal life style, to one where they learn and grow (Barns 2010). There is also a need to highlight that this community has resulted in an unambiguous approach towards human rights. If the figures are taken a look at, only 26% of the participants of this program have offended again, in comparison to around 50-70% of juveniles who had been detained in traditional setting. Thus, there is a need of abolish the system present in the nation at this time, and eradiating the per se detention of people under 18 and instead, working on rebuilding and rehabilitating them in a friendly and positive environment. Of course, this does not assure recidivism, but where this does take place, it would surely be less in number, as compared to the present day high rates (Barns 2010). On the basis of the discussion carried on in the previous segments, it becomes very clear that the juvenile detention centres in Australia have failed to fulfil their objective of rebuilding the youth and instead have contributed towards their worsened conditions. The juvenile detention centres have just resulted in additional burden on the tax payers, as the same is more costly than simply putting a child through public school. More importantly, there has been failure in building the child and in pushing them towards a correct path. This is because the evidence presented above showed that the more than half of those put in these juvenile centres reoffended. This not only failed the youth to which the detention centres owed a duty of improving their lives, but also failed the general public as the juvenile centres increased the likelihood of re-offenders. Thus, there is a need to abolish the use of detention for the juveniles, and instead come up with some worthwhile intervention pro grams, which can ensure the development of the juveniles, and the safety of the general public. References ABC News 2010, Family told dead detainee had brain abscess, ABC News, 27 October, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-10-27/family-told-dead-detainee-had-brain-abscess/2312722 Aikman, A 2017, Royal commission finds juvenile justice leaves kids more damaged, The Australian, 01 April, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/royal-commission-finds-juvenile-justice-leaves-kids-more-damaged/news-story/fd9c611132a7c82f56072d6c5556e403 Atkinson, L 2017 An Overview of Juvenile Detention in Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology, viewed 30 October 2017, https://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/proceedings/25/atkinson.pdf Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017, Youth detention population in Australia 2016, Australian Government, 13 December, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-detention-population-in-australia-2016/contents/table-of-contents Barns, G 2010, Time to rethink juvenile detention, ABC News, News Article, 28 October, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-10-28/barnsdetention/40542 Bochenek, M 2015, Juvenile detention is another area where Australia is falling behind, The Sydney Morning Herald, 01 October, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.smh.com.au/comment/juvenile-detention-is-another-area-where-australia-is-falling-behind-20150929-gjxgzu.html Everingham, S 2016, Detention centres are not places of rehabilitation, former juvenile detainees tell NT royal commission, ABC News, News Article, 19 October, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/nt-youth-forum-hears-from-former-juvenile-detainees/7945020 Farrell, P Davidson, H 2016, 'A national disgrace': protests held across Australia over NT juvenile detention centre abuses, The Guardian, News Article, 30 July, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/30/nt-juvenile-detention-centre-treatment-snap-protests-called-across-australia Nader, C Willingham, R 2010, Detained youths living in filth: Ombudsman, The Age, 07 October, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/detained-youths-living-in-filth-ombudsman-20101006-167tj.html OConnor, I Cameron, M 2002, Juvenile Justice in Australia, In A Graycar P Grabosky (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Australian Criminology, Victoria, Cambridge University Press, pp. 211. Oaten, J Bardon, J 2017, Traumatised juvenile detainees at higher risk of reoffending, psychiatrist says, ABC News, 11 January, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/traumatised-juvenile-detainees-at-higher-risk-of-reoffending/8176442 OHCHR 2017, Convention on the Rights of the Child, OHCHR, viewed 30 October 2017, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx O'Leary, J 2016, Rethinking youth justice: there are alternatives to juvenile detention, The Conversation, 04 August, viewed 30 October 2017, https://theconversation.com/rethinking-youth-justice-there-are-alternatives-to-juvenile-detention-63329 Soler, M Shoenberg, D Schindler, M 2009, Juvenile Justice: Lessons For A New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law Policy, vol. 16, p. 525. UK Parliament 2009, Children's Rights - Human Rights Joint Committee Contents, UK Parliament, Government Publication, viewed 30 October 2017, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/15707.htm