Introduction
Desistance and recidivism can be seen as two common terms used when assessing juvenile delinquency and offence. The issue is of vital importance, which in Australian context can be represented through the heightened public concern in the last decades. Elements of such concern translated into “the imposition of mandatory sentences on juvenile offenders; adoption of zero tolerance policing (especially in public spaces) and the significant extension of police powers” (Cunneen and White, 2006a, p.96). At the same time, it should be stated that the statistics that cover the cover the rates of juvenile reoffending are not sufficient to show trends of successes or failures. Taking the example of the United States, the National Report on juvenile offenders and victims does not deliver rates of recidivism, accordingly, due to the fact that the variables used for assessment vary greatly between different states, e.g. one state uses re-arrest rates, other re-incarceration, re-offence, etc (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006, p.234). With such examples being related to the United States, the same can be partially said about Australia, where recidivism as a variable was also denoted as limited, specifically in the context of measuring the effectiveness of various criminal justice programs.
A subjective approach was investigated in a research by Mark Halsey, who “conducted in excess of 80 interviews at Cavan Training Centre and [the majority of] South Australian prisons (including Adelaide Remand Centre) in order to produce a client-based picture of the reasons for recidivism and repeat incarceration (and particularly the incredibly high rate of progression from juvenile to adult custodial spheres)” (Social Inclusion Initiative, n.d.). The subjectivity of the subject of juvenile offending raise several issues related to juvenile detention systems and desistance. In that regard, the present paper attempts to identify the issues raised in Halsey’s research, providing recommendations on the way the levels of crime desistance can be improved.
The Current Perspective
In order to present the issues raised by Halsey, the analysis of the current practices of juvenile detention and incarceration might be required. In that regard, the first aspect that should be mentioned is the differences that exist in law, policy, and practice between eight children’s court jurisdictions in Australia (Cunneen and White, 2006a, p.96). Such factor can be seen contributing to the different rates of incarceration across the country (p. 96). As a general trend, it can be stated that the police services are granted extensive new powers, where combining such fact with the sole reliance on legislation in carrying out intervention, implies that juvenile justice systems “disregard any consideration of the special needs of children and young people” (Cunneen and White, 2006a, p.102).
Assessing the interventions, it can be stated that a review of juvenile justice programs demonstrates their narrow focus, “based on psychologically based interventions, or specific forms of treatment or training (particularly cognitive behavioural training)” (Cunneen and Luke, 2008, p.199). A similarly narrow purpose is observed in rehabilitation programs, being mostly directed toward reducing re-offending. Thus, the main problem with such interventions can be seen in the appropriateness of the measures used to assess the success of rehabilitation programs. Accordingly, it should be noted that the outcomes used are general for all juvenile offenders, irrespectively of their specific circumstances.
The Experiences of Young Offenders
One of the main issues that arose through Halsey’s research was through the analysis of the antecedents of crime. The main idea can be seen in that the experiences of the offenders were diverse, in a way that despite the fact that they were making their choices freely, they were largely forced into events “which share complex and collective genealogies” (Halsey, 2008, p.100). A support of the latter can be seen through the fact the congregation of areas that constitute evidence of failing social and economic conditions, the result of which is a threat to social order. Thus, a social status, the result of which is living within the least attractive accommodations in areas of failing social and economic conditions have a great impact on the likelihood of offence (Cunneen and White, 2006b, p.21). Additionally, the interventions, either through welfare or law enforcement, [R]einforce the distinction between ‘the virtuous poor’ (who are thought to exhibit positive attitudes toward self-improvement, healthy lifestyle and ready submission to state criteria for welfare assistance) and the ‘vicious poor’ (who are conceptualised as lacking industry and the work ethic, and who are seen as idle, wanderers and generally unrespectable) (Cunneen and White, 2006b, p.22).
The latter not only is translated to disproportional confinements, but also to a reality in which the incarceration offered “exposure to activities and projects not readily available within the communities in which residents/inmates grew up and eventually return to” (Halsey, 2007b, p.345). Thus, it can be stated that rehabilitation as a concept of eliminating risk factors for offending is totally absent. The activities and projects offered to the offenders provide an environment that is absent of opportunities to turn their life around, in educational vocational or other aspect. The latter leads to that incarceration being viewed merely as a place in which offenders will turn into smarter offenders (Halsey, 2007b, p.347). The theme of individual experiences of juveniles, ignoring the individual circumstances of juvenile offenders put all the responsibility on them, and lock-up the prisoners are also the one responsible to change their future. With the factors related to the initiation of offending entrenched in prisons, in both cases, within and out of prison, the offenders do not have the capacity to change them, while they are expected to do so alone.
Another important issue in Halsey’s research was derived from a deeper investigation of the incarceration and detention experience itself. As mentioned earlier, juveniles are expected to shape their own changes, while at the same time the Children Act (1987) states that the responsibilities for detainees lie solely on the centers, namely on the Director-General, whose responsibilities include promoting the social, cultural; and educational development of detainees, maintain among others, the emotional being of detainees, and facilitating proper control and management (SECT 14).
The main issue is that the aspects taught are not helpful for the detainees upon release, due to that fact that such aspects are not transferable, being absent in the outer environment. The lack of structure in such activities leads to that despite offenders acknowledging the concept of punishment, they fail to acknowledge how the environment in which they are locked will help them be better. The absence of responsibilities, in that regard, contribute to that detention might seem like a favorable option against the outer world, in which responsibilities still exist. The physical and the social proximity at which the offenders are placed do not contribute to extracting the benefit of the learned activities. The promotion of “social and cultural environment” for detainees does not eliminate the fact that an evitable component of the lock-up is talking about different types of crime and how to commit them without being caught (Halsey, 2007b, p.348). The latter is an indication of the lack of non-criminogenic experiences for detainees, especially the first timers.
Another issue is related to the post-release periods. Such issue is associated with the expectations of custodial and post-release staff, who expect that offenders should cease associating with their mates (Halsey, 2007a). Considering the social proximity mentioned earlier, many mates becomes attached to each other. Accordingly, the factor of mateship becomes a device through which the offenders are deprived from the ability to learn and sustain a life beyond crime. The same can be said about other risk factor such as drugs and alcohol post release, and as long as there are no practices devised that will substitute the purposes for which the substances are used, such aspect of rehabilitation as eliminating risk factors is unachievable.
Proposed Changes
The recommendations concerned with the consideration of the background of the offenders can be seen through the assessment technique known as GRAM (Group Risk Assessment Model). The technique revolves around the adjustment of the offender characteristic for the determination of re-offend trends. A research describing the aforementioned model in Smith and Jones (2008) indicated such characteristics as indigenous status, age, the Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA), offence type, etc. Some of these characteristics were also investigated in Vignaendra and Fitzgerald (2006), and confirmed their association with re-offending, although the most linked characteristics were found to be the indigenous status, gender, and age (p. 13). The latter was namely specified in relation to 10 to 13 years of age, male offenders and indigenous offenders (Vignaendra and Fitzgerald, 2006, p.12). The model was proved to be successful in determining the likely hood of re-offense, and thus, such model might be used to adjust rehabilitation programs, in terms of the risk factors correlated with the likelihood of re-offense (Smith and Jones, 2008). It might be suggested to include other variable characteristics, such as family history, drug and alcohol abuse. In such way it can be stated that the outcomes of the model can be used to modify rehabilitation programs’ efforts toward individualization, rather than generalization.
Another recommendation can be seen through the construction of the rehabilitative programs, which in this case might imply such factors as the type of activities engaged in detention centers, their structure, and the isolation of first-timers from serious offenders. Accordingly, the recommendations should be connected to the pre-and post-release periods, through interventions to preserve wellbeing and safety (Cappo, 2007). An example of the latter can be seen through the report on Operation Mandrake by South Australia Police (SAPOL), an operation focusing on the issue of serious repeat offending by a small number of young people. Among the recommendations of the aforementioned report is the collaborative approach between agencies, based on the example of Boston Gun Project (Cappo, 2007, p.42). The involvement includes focusing on integrated services, community representatives, peer relations, and individual factors. Additionally, the role of the family in rehabilitative programs can be highlighted through youth justice conferences, i.e. “a decision-making forum in which the young offender and his/her family/support group meet face-to-face with the victim of the offence and his/her family/support group” (Trimboli, 2000, p.1). The functions of such conferences are to discuss offending, and this case, such approach might contribute to the acceptance of responsibility by offenders. With the majority of participants reporting satisfaction with the conference, it can be stated that such approach can be seen suitable for implementation as a part of a rehabilitative program.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the Halsey’s research outlined the fact that the ineffectiveness of many the juvenile justice system can be seen in the generalized approach toward offenders. The inclusion of the experiences of the offenders provided an insight toward understanding the factors contributing to reoffend rates. In that regard, the provided recommendations address some of the issues highlight in Halsey, although a further investigation of their impact might be required.
References
CAPPO, D. 2007. To Break the Cycle: Prevention and rehabilitation responses to serious repeat offending by young people (Report) [Online]. Web.
CUNNEEN, C. & LUKE, G. 2008. Recidivism and the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Interventions: Juvenile Offenders and Post Release Support. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 19, 197-210.
CUNNEEN, C. & WHITE, R. 2006a. Australia: Control, Containment or Empowerment? In: MUNCIE, J. & GOLDSON, B. (eds.) Comparative youth justice: critical issues. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
CUNNEEN, C. & WHITE, R. 2006b. Social Class, Youth Crime and Justice. In: GOLDSON, B. & MUNCIE, J. (eds.) Youth, crime and justice: critical issues. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
HALSEY, M. 2007a. Assembling Recidivism: The Promise and Contingencies of Post-Release Life. JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY, 97, 1209-1260.
HALSEY, M. 2007b. On confinement: Resident and inmate perspectives of secure care and imprisonment. Probation Journal, 54, 338-367.
HALSEY, M. 2008. Pathways into Prison: Biographies, Crimes, Punishment. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20, 95-110.
SMITH, N. E. & JONES, C. 2008. Monitoring trends in re-offending among adult and juvenile offenders are given non-custodial sanctions. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 1-12.
SNYDER, H. N. & SICKMUND, M. 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report [Online]. Office of Justice Programs. Web.
SOCIAL INCLUSION INITIATIVE. n.d. Young Offenders Written Submission: Interview with Mark Halsey [Online]. Social Inclusion. Web.
TRIMBOLI, L. 2000. AN EVALUATION OF THE NSW YOUTH JUSTICE CONFERENCING SCHEME, Sydney, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
VIGNAENDRA, S. & FITZGERALD, J. 2006. Reoffending among young people cautioned by police or who participated in a youth justice conference. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 1-16.