Over the past several decades, Victoria and Australia have recorded increased juvenile delinquency cases, exposing young offenders' underlying issues. While social and moral training is linked to juvenile offending, nothing much has been done to address the rising cases of young people adopting and engaging in juvenile offenses. According to Armytage & Ogloff (2017), Victoria's juvenile justice system is marred with a myriad of challenges and an ineffective legislative framework that does little to correct the young offenders' underlying issues while in detention. Further, recent media reports highlight the plight of the jurisdiction's corrosive youth justice system. It is assumed that young offenders are suffering rather than being rehabilitated. Simultaneously, malpractices within detention centers also question human rights' legitimacy, especially among children and young adults (Young et al., 2017). With so many questions raised over Victoria's youth justice system, this paper examines the justice system's underlying issues and discusses three theories associated with the youth justice system.
Historically, Victoria was once regarded as a champion in implementing an effective youth justice system backed by reduced youth offenders than other Australia's jurisdictions. At that time, fewer youth offending cases were being reported, signaling high levels of responsibility right from the community-level to justice corridors. Despite these past achievements, current trends depict an increasing cohort of youths engaging in offensive behaviors. In essence, the youth justice system in Victoria remains a complex issue attracting the public interest. Moreover, the youth justice system covers areas of significance, including public policy, youth rehabilitation, and children's rights. Undoubtedly, these juvenile system elements make it more distinct from the primary criminal justice system due to their uniqueness in handling young people.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Recent events of juvenile offending have elicited widespread criticism of how ineffective Victoria's youth justice system is, and how the detention centers damage the youth instead of rehabilitating them (Rollason, 2019). For instance, Rollason (2019) notes that excessive isolation acts were present among three Victorian youth prisons, which did not conform to human rights. Children are fragile who need regular social and moral training to mend their delinquent behaviors. According to Marrett (2017), juveniles' confinement can cause future harm and long-term traumatic episodes. While the legislative support isolation, it is only applicable as a last resort and for a minimal timeframe. Excessive measures to instill discipline among children are punitive and damaging, and no rehabilitation can be achieved through these methods.
A report by Victoria's parliament acknowledges the gap juvenile diversion programs create in mitigating youth offending in the state (Victoria, 2018). More so, those in rural areas are largely affected by the inaccessibility of these diversion programs. Other support programs geared towards helping youth offenders continue to disadvantage the less fortunate. Another overlooked factor in Vitoria's youth justice system is the unprecedented number of juveniles in remand. Both Marion (2017) and Victoria (2018) point out the circumstances under which young offenders undergo while in detention centers. While much attention has been placed on juvenile delinquency's legal framework, less effort has been put to safeguard these young offenders' safety and well-being. If no strategies are implemented to protect these youth offenders' well-being, significant complications on the rehabilitation process, and management of detention centers will arise.
Undoubtedly, making changes to the existing policy framework will go a long way in mending the already damaged juvenile justice system. However, resolving the underlying issues requires a careful review of the historical and current trends of the juvenile policy framework. Despite Australia's fight to streamline its youth justice system, the United States` juvenile justice system faces more critical problems. In the country's justice system, in general, more time is taken in processing juvenile cases. As such, many of the juvenile offenders are already past their twenties. Therefore, the U.S youth justice system leans more on incarceration and capital punishment than detention and rehabilitation (Knoche et al., 2018). Moreover, social workers, who once represented the juvenile offenders, are now replaced by lawyers, making the entire youth justice system more of a criminal justice system.
Comparing the U.S and Victoria's youth justice systems denotes the need to perfect the existing justice system and promote juvenile offenders' lawful treatment. Udell & Mohammed (2018) note that physical health is an impeding issue among juveniles within the juvenile justice system. For instance, juveniles find themselves sharing detention rooms with older offenders. As such, they face physical abuse or violence from other inmates. Ultimately, the incarceration of youth offenders has far-reaching consequences among these children. Further, issues of biasness, such as police arrests of juveniles, are common in a certain minority or socioeconomic group. The inefficacies exposed within the two youth justice systems are indications of struggle to fair justice to all. Better recommendations need to be implemented. The court systems streamlined, and respect for human rights needs to be observed to achieve total fairness, well-being, and safety within the youth justice system.
Much of the youth justice system has been based on the poor state of Victoria's vulnerabilities within its juvenile legislative framework. Explaining the causes and effects of young people in prison opens a gateway to developing juvenile delinquency's sociological construct (Hoffmann & Dufur, 2018). Three theories of anomie, subcultural, and control significantly contribute to explaining juvenile delinquency. However, these theories describe why those youths in prison are concentrated in the minority or less fortunate social constructs (Hoffmann & Dufur, 2018). These theories explore the correlation between crime and social structure.
Merton's anomie theory is based on the notion that delinquent behavior is influenced by a lack of access to norms and individual goals (Simmler et al., 2017). In essence, people develop goals and strategize on how to achieve these goals. These goals are culturally recognized, and not achieving them can lead to deviant behavior depicted by conformity, rebellion, or retreat. When a person fails to achieve recognized goals, they engage in unorthodox methods to achieve the same or alternative goal. Moreover, the discrepancy arising from achieving the social goal results in social conflict or psychological stress. Individuals under such a situation can either adapt to the social change, accept other social goals not attained legitimately, abandon the cultural goals, rebel the cultural goals, or reject the cultural goals entirely. Simmler et al. (2017) further believe that individuals from a low social group adopt such negative behaviors as compared to their counterparts due to fewer opportunities within their social strata. Merton's theory explains how good criminal policy is also a perfect social policy. Understanding this theory is significant in resolving inequalities and juvenile delinquency.
In the subcultural theory, Cohen assumes that young offenders are part of a subculture with its norms and beliefs that contradict the rest of the cultures (Ren et al., 2015). The theory suggests that children from low-income families first fail to achieve the cultural goals and objectives expected. Compared to middle- or high-income families, these children lack the necessary resources, skills, and motivation to achieve the set goals—the difference in class and social status results in dissatisfaction, rebellion, or frustration. Indeed, children from low-class families are not physically and emotionally prepared to achieve the milestones achieved by middle-class families. According to Ren et al. (2017), these subcultures do not conform to society's values. Unable to achieve the expectation, a delinquent subculture emerges to fill the gap.
Lastly, the Control theory argues that delinquent behavior arises from the lack of social bond, commitment, and goals. Without the commitment to achieve social goals and objectives, the individual becomes uncontrolled, leading to negative attitudes and behavior. Developed by Hirschi, the lack of self-control drives delinquent behavior, and self-control can apply to both in the community and school. For instance, a student who is not involved in school activities or is not committed to achieving excellent results may opt for illegitimate behaviors to achieve their goals. The theory further suggests that the commitment of individuals is a binding factor to society at large. If the social bond is broken, a person can develop delinquent behavior. Regardless, whether it is anomie, subcultural, or control theory, societal and cultural values and beliefs play a significant role in juvenile delinquency.
In conclusion, Victoria and the U.S juvenile justice systems exploit the young delinquent population, leading to increased cases of detained young people. With biasness, health-related issues, and the well-being of young offenders in jeopardy, juvenile justice systems must incorporate better policy frameworks to rehabilitate these young people. Moreover, issues of excessive isolation of juveniles paint a bad picture of the youth justice system. Instead, better approaches that encompass effective juvenile diversion programs should be enforced. While the paper explored challenges facing the youth justice system, theories of anomie, subcultural, and control explain how the youth from low-income areas engage more in delinquent behaviors. These theories suggest that social bonding, individual and community-level goals, and societal norms and beliefs are key drivers for understanding juvenile delinquency.
References
Armytage, P., & Ogloff, J. R. (2017). Youth justice review and strategy: Meeting needs and reducing offending . Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Government. https://apo.org.au/node/101051
Hoffmann, J. P., & Dufur, M. J. (2018). Family social capital, family social bonds, and juvenile delinquency. American Behavioral Scientist , 62 (11), 1525-1544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218787020
Knoche, V. A., Summers, A., & Miller, M. K. (2018). Trauma-informed: Dependency court personnel’s understanding of trauma and perceptions of court policies, practices, and environment. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma , 11 (4), 495-505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-018-0219-7
Marrett, S. (2017). Beyond Rehabilitation: Constitutional Violations Associated with the Isolation and Discrimination of Transgender Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. BCL Rev. , 58 , 351. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3555&context=bclr
Ren, L., Zhang, H., Zhao, J. S., & Zhao, R. (2015). Delinquent subculture and juvenile offenders’ attitudes toward the police in China. Police Quarterly , 19 (1), 87-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611115604450
Rollason, B. (2019). Report delivers scathing assessment of Victoria's treatment of young prisoners . ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-05/ombudsmans-scathing-review-of-youth-detention/11481000
Simmler, M., Plassard, I., Schär, N., & Schuster, M. (2017). Understanding pathways to crime: Can anomie theory explain higher crime rates among refugees? - Current findings from a Swiss survey. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research , 23 (4), 539-558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-017-9351-4
Udell, W. A., & Mohammed, S. (2018). The prevalence of physical health problems among youth in the juvenile justice system: A systematic review. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice , 12 (3), 6. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1890&context=jhdrp
VICTORIA, P. O. (2018). Inquiry into youth justice centres in Victoria. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/file_uploads/LSIC_58-10_Text_WEB_j52MxGrF.pdf
Young, S., Greer, B., & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: A global perspective. BJPsych Bulletin , 41 (1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.052274
