Introduction
Youth Justice Conferencing was established by the Australian government and incorporated under the Young Offender’s Act of 1997. The youth conferencing is based on the tenets of providing a viable alternative to court proceedings for young offenders. However, not all criminal offences committed by children are punishable under the young offenders’ act. In an event that a child has committed a crime leading to a person’s death or severe sexual assault are all offences omitted from consideration through the youth conferencing. The main rationale of introducing the youth justice conferencing is to provide for a safe and conducive environment in which both the offender and the victim are given equal opportunity to present facts about the said offence. The Australian justice system has undergone numerous changes over the years to find the best system of representation especially of the minority ethnic youth whose morals have been put into questioning (Muncie & Goldson, 2006, p.96). The criminal justice has also been racialised and the poor criminalized unfairly. With the introduction of youth justice conferencing the Australian government was geared towards removing the above disparities and ensuring justice for all.
Youth Justice Conferencing
Though no system is completely crime-proof, the idea of the youth justice conferencing tightly embraced by the Australian and New Zealand governments is one that should be adopted by other crime-stricken communities. The trial system under the youth justice system gives ownership of the judicial system to the participants.
Just like the welfarist system, youth conferencing understands that children’s crime might be a result of family background. It has been argued more than enough times that most children who engage in criminal activities have been proven to come from broken homes or homes with family problems. Just like the welfarist system, youth conferencing is geared towards addressing and assisting the offender to correct their wrong ways and reintegrate into society.
Another feature of youth conferencing is that the punishment accorded to the offender is commensurate to the offence (Juvenile Justice, 2000, par. 3). This was the same case in the justice system whereby the punishment accorded was proportional to the offence. This was contrary to the welfarist system whereby like offences received an exact sentence without considering the different circumstances of occurrence. Youth conferencing has as one of its tenets reinstituting the offenders back to the community. These were the same principles in which the justice system was founded with its vision being to create a community in which young offenders participate without reoffending.
Further the youth conferencing advocates for fair trial and equity. This is achieved by giving both the offender and the victim equal time to present their side of the story. This is based on the tenets of the justice system which also advocated for equity and safeguarding of individual rights.
In addition, acceptance of committing the offence by the offender is of paramount importance for the youth conference to take place (Human Services Juvenile Justice, 2000, par. 8). If they deny the allegations, the option would be to go for a court trial. The youth conferencing does not cover all the offences but is selective as provided in the young offenders’ act. Crimes that cause the death of a person, sexual assault are not eligible for trial by youth conferencing. However, summary offences like petty theft whose offenders are aged between ten years and eighteen years are eligible for trial by youth conferencing (New South Wales Government, 2000, par. 5).
Youth Conferencing as a Government Hybrid Technique
The main purpose of any government is to provide security to its people by eradicating crime. Different governments have utilized different systems to ensure that society is safe for maximum personal growth and development. The Australian juvenile system has changed over the years with the hope of developing a system that will be compatible with Australian society so as to alleviate the problem of young crime.
Youth conferencing is seen as a community program but critically analyzed the government still has the upper hand in the outcome of the cases. For example, a youth conference is not convened until it has been approved either by the police, the court, or the director of public prosecutions. Essentially this is still part of the government deciding on the course the case will take.
In addition to the long arm of the government, in this case, the court or the police have the prerogative to withdraw the case at their own mandate. This clearly indicates that the government still has a lot of control over the process of youth justice conferencing.
Moreover, the youth justice conferencing is a combination of all the systems that the Australian government has had in the past. Concepts of welfarism, the justice system, and even managerialism are all incorporated in the youth justice system. The only difference is that the offender and the victim do not appear before the court of law to state their case.
Effectiveness of the Youth Justice Conferencing
Relegating the judicial powers to the community was a very brilliant idea as this assisted in enabling the community to embrace the outcome of the verdict. However, the system is more idealistic than realistic. According to Stewart et al (2004, par. 1) the system is doomed to fail especially in Queensland unless stringent and urgent measures are taken by the government. The police who are supposed to refer the young offenders to the youth conference are not quite conversant with its operations and thus do not utilize this system accordingly.
Secondly, the mental capability of both the offender and the victim cannot be regarded as mature. Because of this reason, it becomes hard for the victim and offender to really understand the true meaning of apology and remorse for one’s action (McLaughlin, 2003, p.192). Due to the above factor, there is a likelihood for repetition of the same offence. More stringent punishments at times work well towards restraining these minors from repeating these offences.
However, all is not lost for the Australian community. With the right attitude of the community and the government, much can be achieved. The system would be more effective especially considering that the intimidation of the court of law is not imminent in this system. Thus, the young offenders and victims feel free to narrate their sides of the story. Secondly, it is emotionally and psychologically tormenting for children to appear before a packed courtroom to narrate the ordeal.
More so, since members of the community are responsible for the verdict so will they be responsible to ensure that the offender reforms and is reintegrated back into the society.
Reference list
Juvenile Justice. 2000. A Guide to Youth Justice. Web.
Human Services Juvenile Justice, 2000. Conferencing. Web.
McLaughlin, E., 2003. Restorative justice: critical issues.(E-book). California. Sage publishers. Web.
Muncie, J. &Goldson, B., 2006. Comparative youth justice: critical issues. (E-book).Carlifornia.Pine Forges Press. Web.
New South Wales Government, 2000. NSW legislation; young offenders act 1997 no 54. Web.
Stewart, A. & Smith, F., 2004. Youth justice conferencing and police referrals: the gatekeeping role of police in Queensland, Australia. Journal Of Criminal Justice Volume 32, Issue 4, 2004.