Dealing with young offenders

Abstract

This study of systems for dealing with young offenders takes as its starting point the contrast between recent developments in the United States and Britain. These developments have occurred as a result of questions which have been raised, on both sides of the Atlantic, about the role of the juvenile court in combating delinquency. In the United States the resulting re-appraisal of the court’s function has been characterised by an emphasis on the fact that the court is part of the criminal justice system, and that it therefore cannot ignore the need to protect society against harmful conduct and to observe the requirements of due process. In England and Scotland, on the other hand, the movement has been towards the creation of tribunals which pay less attention to the child’s offence and which exercise a jurisdiction which tends to blur the distinction between offenders and non-offenders. From an analysis of this contrast the thesis moves to an examination of a significant similarity between the emerging Anglo- American systems. Although different solutions have been adopted to the problem of re-defining the role of the Juvenile court, the reforms in each of the countries studies have been accompanied by a desire to narrow the jurisdiction of the court. The conclusion which emerges from an examination of British and American experience is that, instead of seeing the juvenile court as an all-purpose delinquency-control agency, it should be viewed as an agency whose inherent limitations must be recognised if best use is to be made of its distinctive capabilities. This conclusion raises four related problems which the thesis considers in detail. First, attention is given to the task of attempting to define the court’s role, and an effort is made to determine which functions it can effectively and appropriately perform. Second, on the basis of this analysis, consideration is given to the formulation of criteria which indicate with precision the types of case which should be referred to court. Third, the design of an effective sieving device is discussed: machinery must be created which will ensure that the court receives only those cases which are appropriate to its re-defined role. Fourth, reference is made to the types of informal services which are required to deal with the cases diverted from the court. Against this comparative and theoretical background aspects of New Zealand’s system for dealing with young offenders are considered. This part of the study takes the form of an historical analysis of its development and a description of the system in operation. Because of the conclusion reached regarding the importance of limiting court intake particular attention is focused on the procedures and criteria employed in making the decision as to whether or not a child should be prosecuted. Hence the fieldwork on which much of the New Zealand material is based concentrates on the Youth Aid/Social Welfare conference. An attempt is made to describe and analyse the day-to-day working of this type of sieving device. The findings are discussed, and certain features of the conference system are criticised. The thesis concludes with comments on some of the difficulties which must be taken into account in implementing a policy which emphasises the informal handling of young offenders.