Dealing With Youth Crime

[[REEE] RadicalRandal11]

Dealing with Youth Crime

 

Over the past two years, Townsville and surrounding areas have fallen victim to a new epidemic. As crime rates soar and sentencing rates drop, communities have decided to take matters into their own hands. This hate has led to strained ties between the community as vigilante hate groups emerge. Youth crime has come to the foreground of local political and social issues and cannot go unanswered. Currently, youths facing sentencing are being let off due to the sheer number of offenders already in the system. As offenders are being let off, only to reoffend, the youth justice system needs to be scrutinised and improved upon.

“A set of laws, rules and provisions specifically applicable to juvenile offenders and institutions and bodies entrusted with the functions of the administration of juvenile justice and designed to meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders, while protecting their basic rights.” (United Nations, 1985: 2, Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice). Mens rea and actus reus are the foundational principles of criminal law. When adults face sentencing for criminal charges, the prosecution must prove these two legal principles exist. Mens rea refers to the evil intention, or the knowledge of the wrongfulness of an act, whereas actus reus, refers to the physical actions taken by the accused. Unlike adults, the law presumes that a child could not possess the necessary knowledge to have criminal intention. The presumption of doli incapax assumes that if a child has succeeded the age of criminal responsibility of 10, they may face sentencing (Chapter 2 general principles, Criminal Code Commonwealth 1995). It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove along with the elements of the offence, that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 years knew or ought to have known what they were doing at the time of the offence.

 

The cases of R v Blessington (1987) (“Blessington”) and R v LMW (1999) (“LMW”) are cases involving juveniles, where the defence of doli incapax was presented. LMW refers to the drowning of a six year old child at the hands of an 11 year old. At the handing of the sentence, the judge noted that the accused was an “almost retarded child who did not appreciate the consequences of his actions… The results of this accident were caused by actions with no ill intent.” LMW is a prime precedence case for the use of doli incapax. As the child was genuinely disabled and lacked necessary knowledge regarding the outcome of his actions, they should have been protected. If LMW was sentenced to jail, the child would have been taken away from his family and sent to a detention centre that would have lacked the care and attention that the child needed from his family. For this reason, the judge made an informed decision to not sentence LMW. Blessington refers to the abduction, rape and murder of Janine Balding. The case involved five members who participated in the slew of crime, of which, four of the five were considered juveniles. The youngest of the group; Bronson Blessington, aged 14, took part in all events detailed in the report and received a sentence for the rest of his natural life provided he was of able body and mind. “To sentence people so young to a long term of imprisonment is of course a heavy task… the facts surrounding the commission of these crimes are so barbaric that I believe I have no alternative other than to impose upon these young prisoners, even despite their age, a life sentence… I recommend that none of the prisoners in the matter should ever be released.” (Justice Newman, R v Blessington). Being only 14 at the time when the crime was committed, the sentence was the largest ever given to a juvenile. Such a severe punishment at a young age would have greatly affected Blessington growing up. Being isolated from family and friends for the rest of his life would have limited social interaction and development of necessary speaking skills. Having forcefully emancipating a child from parental care would have shaken the family due to what was essentially the death of Blessington, never being allowed back into society. From the victim’s perspective, the family of Janine Balding deemed the sentence appropriate, saying that Blessington had nothing to contribute so society. The human rights committee had acknowledged that the life sentence breached Unite Nations’ convention regarding the rights of the children. At the time of sentencing, Blessington was not yet eligible for a life sentence, however retrospective change to the “Sentencing Procedure, Act 1999” instead deemed Blessington eligible. Whilst the presumption of doli incapax is difficult to disprove, as in Blessington’s case, when successfully prosecuted, the repercussions will lead to a harsher, maybe unreasonable punishment for the child. 

 

Punishment for criminal conduct is an essential component of any criminal justice system (ALRC Report 144, Purposes of Laws Relevant to Family Violence, section 4.77, 2009). The theories of punishment construct the basis of the criminal sentencing process. The three theories of punishment have stemmed from the philosophies of utilitarian and retributive theory. The utilitarian philosophy states that punishment benefits outweigh the detrimental effects of the sentence, on the other hand, retributive theory on the other hand justifies punishment regardless of its effects. From these two philosophies, the theories derived are incapacitation, deterrence and retribution.

 

The differences in the theories of punishment when considering an adult and juvenile can be made clear when observing R v Johnson (2018) (“Johnson”) and R v Juvenile (2018) “(Juvenile”).  Johnson was charged with three counts of burglary and two counts of vandalism. Burglary, defined as “(1) Any person who enters or is in the dwelling of another with intent to commit an indictable offence in the dwelling commits a crime.” (Section 419 – Burglary, Criminal Code Act, 2018), carries a 14-year maximum imprisonment. Johnson received a sentence of  two years of imprisonment with one year suspended due to a previous criminal. Provided Johnson offends again within the suspended time, he will served the remainder of suspended time. Juvenile involves a person under the age of 18 years charged with four counts of stealing and three counts of break and enter. Stealing, defined as “A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to the person’s own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing.” (Section 391 – Stealing, Criminal Code, 2018), carries a five year maximum imprisonment. Break and Enter, as defined “entering a dwelling by means of any break” (Section 419 – Burglary – Subsection 2, Criminal Code Act, 2018”. Those charged with Break and Enter are liable to imprisonment for life. Unlike the adult offender in Johnson, who had been charged with a less severe crime and a minor criminal history was punished to a harsher standard than that of juvenile, who received a fully suspended 12 month sentence. 

 

 

 

As previously seen, juveniles receiving any harsh sentence is rare, Community backlash regarding the weak sentences are evident when looking at news forums online with people even taking vigilante measures. A 14 year old boy, Jed Brown was assaulted at his local soccer ground after a group of men claimed that the boy was vandalising the building. Jed’s mother stated that the group kicked him in the head and have caused long lasting physical and mental damage. "My son has been chased before by vehicles with young men screaming at the boys, telling them to go home and they're going to catch them and bash them," (Mandy Elvy, ABC, 2016). Vigilante measures are counter intuitive in efforts to create a peaceful and respectful society and endanger all those who are involved in the activities. Acts of retributive violence will only heighten tensions between criminals and members of society, leading to a further cycle of hatred.

 

Blessington, 1992)” gave rise for new legislation that allowed for juvenile sentencing to reach previously unseen levels. Had Bronson Blessington been 18 when the crime was committed, the sentence could not have been any more severe. Maturity and mental capacity increase greatly through the 4 year period of which was bridged in sentencing. Earning a natural life sentence at age 14 was something never before seen in Australia and continues to be the final option that the law would ever consider. The sentence of natural life is generally kept for only the most heinous offenders, particularly murderers. “Of these, 568 (natural life sentences) (95.2 per cent) of the male population was convicted with murder.” (Life Imprisonment in Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology, 1989). Considering that Bronson Blessington was tried as an adult at age 14, the validity of the sentence has been questioned by many as the circumstances surrounding the case are a pivotal point of controversy. After serving a mandatory 25-year sentencing period, Bronson has since applied for bail on two separate occasions. In Blessington’s final appeal in 2016, Bronson claims that he was unfairly sentenced as part of a “revenge act” by Justice Newman. Defence lawyer Peter Breen, states “In September 1990 when the prisoner was sentenced, 92.5 per cent of ‘life’ served 15 years or less.” (Bronson Blessington Mercy Application, 2016). Breen also draws fact that the prisoner’s natural life sentence contravened the legislation at the time when the crime was committed. Three pieces of retrospective legislation have been introduced as a direct result of “R v Blessington (1992)”. The three branches of legislation, introduced in 1997, 2001 and 2005 respectively, created further guidelines regarding the appeals of juveniles serving life sentences. The introduction of new legislation meant that Blessington now had to wait 30 years prior to having his case reviewed.

 

The cases of LMW and Blessington show two polarising extremes of the law in respect to juvenile sentencing. Currently, statistics show that the current sentencing scheme in not effective in enforcing the rehabilitative principal in the theories of punishment. In 2015, after only six months later, 48 percent of young offenders had returned to detention centres, with a total of 74% returning after only 12 months. Evidently, the current schemes are not effective and in need of a reform. Reports state that Cleveland Youth Detention has exceeded safe capacity of 85% and is struggling with staff supervision for such a large group of people. Regressive changes introduced early in 2018 have led to the reintroduction of 17-year-old offenders into the youth justice system. The changes to legislation will only lead to weaker sentences as beds become increasingly in demand.

 

 

 

 

As juvenile correctional services are being increasing strained, reforms to the system have come to the forefront of local issues. A boot camp program introduced in 2013 proved extremely successful, drastically reducing reoffending rates of those who took part in the program. The promising program was scrapped in 2016 as opposition took power of Queensland Parliament, labelling the program as a 12-million-dollar failure, instead proposing that the funds could be utilised elsewhere. While harsher sentencing would act as a sufficient deterrent, local detention centres simply do not have the required space to house more offenders. The simple fix to this problem is to draw funding towards the project in efforts to expand existing facilities. Although facilitating more youths would greatly help the war on youth crime, sentencing procedures must be critiqued and improved upon. Holding older youths accountable for their actions, especially those involved with spree offences, will greatly increase the number of juveniles prosecuted. The increased sentencing rate will also act as another deterrent to all those considering crime. Community initiatives could potentially be introduced to reintegrate offenders with the wider communities in areas such as charity and essential services. The new perspective will act as another outlook for offenders to consider when thinking about offending again.

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by [REEE] RadicalRandal11

[Gumpy]

+1

[S1nap5e]

10/10 essay, not sure how itd hold up against plagarism software tho lol

[ichangemynamealot]

most schools use the same plagarism software, at least in queensland i cant remember what the fuck its called though.

[Lachlants02]

-1 To op