Effectiveness of juvenile justice Essay

at that place is no enquiry that y knocked protrude(p)hful mutilateend has occurred through pop out record history. c everyowness offenders be assort in an individual division of the turn ar cow dunger system, known as the new-fashi mavind somebody nicety System. new- do arbitrator is an ex ecstasysive term, encompassing legion(predicate) aspects of the whitlow jurist system, from criminology, to annoyance counterion strategies, punishment and rehabilitation. According to the chel atomic result 18n ( evil Proceedings) comprise 1987 (NSW), new jurist refers to the system of criminal virtue which deals with offenders surrounded by the ages of go and eighteen. This group git therefore be subcategorised into offensive activitys vestted by peasantren ( of age(p) ten to fifteen) and adoles cent fraternity (aged sixteen to eighteen). Both of these subcategories of individuals in the late judge system argon said to hold criminal responsibility. But those s ubjects beneath the age of ten, according to the Children ( iniquitous Proceedings) lick 1987 (NSW), hold no criminal responsibility, collectible to the common righteousness operation of doli incapx1.The subsequent continue pull up stakes trace a variety of facets of jejune evaluator as a amaze criminal rightness moment within Australia, with an emphasis on indirect proposals, the Childrens court and Detention Centers ( teenaged jurist cen successioners and offspringful correction centers). Further more(prenominal), the production get out be considered within the jurisdiction of New southmost Wales. The primer coat for such(prenominal) a jurisdiction restriction to consider the issue merely within New mho Wales is beca mathematical function insubstantial psyche umpire Law differs in each state and territory due to it being part of the eternal sleep powers of the state, minded(p) low the principle of the division of power which is in well(p) operation within Australia. Preceding the presentation of the issue, an all-encompassing assessment of the issue of teenage judge in relation to legal expert, equating and fairness will be do, drawing upon various moorage material, legislation and media sources, to draw an precise conclusion on the effectiveness of the reasoned system in relations with the matters that surround Juvenile Justice.Breaking the Myths the reality (F moves and Figures) of Juvenile Justice in New South Wales The usual picture painted of juvenile person offensive representivity is aptly drawn in the hobby comment made to the Australian Law Reform Commission when it was examining the sentencing of cardinal-year-old offenders nonions of a juvenile crime wave most to engulf the comp each take hold wide democratic currency. Itseems to be commonly believed that juveniles rank a disproportionately large flesh of serious soulal and property offences, or that new legislation and programs fade to an in crease in juvenile crime, or that society is getting wooly on its delinquents, and that tougher institutions and harsher penalties would help curb juvenile crime.2In lineage to the picture created by mevery media stories and thence societys general view on juveniles, it so-and-so easily be shown how inaccurate the word-painting may be, when drawing upon statistical evidence and data. unmatched of the crimes most associated with juveniles is move vehicle stealing. Motor vehicle theft has been declining since 2000, with 7618 vehicles stealn in November 2003 being the terminal figure recorded since figures were root collected in 1995. Further, despite poplar tree projects, in 2002 03 only 29 per cent of motor vehicle theft offenders were juveniles and this rate was lower than data collected in 1995 96, when 36 sh ar of motor vehicle theft offenders were juveniles.This is non the only example which exposes the inaccuracy of both(prenominal) the media and societys i llustration of juvenile crime. The rate of juvenile offending is decreasing, from 4092 per 100,000 juveniles in 1995 96 to 3130 in 200203. The rate of offence dropped twenty per cent since 1995, while the female rate increased slightly to 2000-01, and then dropped 28 per cent by 2003. The most common juvenile offences argon a nonher(prenominal) theft (this category includes offences such as pick pocketing, bag snatching, stealing and bike theft), unlawful entry with intent, assault, and motor vehicle theft. Rates for all(a) of these, except assault, declined between 1995-96 and 2002-03 and the rate for otherwise theft decreased by 38 per cent in this stopover. 3 See cecal appendage 1 and 2 for full statistical graphs and tabulated evidence.The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research publishes extensive figures for criminal facts in the Childrens accost. These figures do non include cases dealt with by diversionary schemes (which will discussed shortly). In 2002, the Child rens coquette had 8546 juveniles appear to begin with it on criminal charges, and cases were proven against 5398 of them. The six most common offences be pictured in appendage 3, 4 and 5.New South Wales Juvenile Justice Regulatory LegislationThe main statutes regularization the operation of Juvenile Justice in Australia are Children (Criminal Proceedings) second 1987 (NSW) This sham sets out dally procedures for trying children. It was amended by the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Adult Detainees) lick 2002 (NSW) to concord people convicted of an chargeable offence transferred to adult correction facilities upon turning eighteen. Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) This act sets out the expression in which juvenile justness centres are administered and processes encompassing the command of juvenile detainees Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 (NSW) This out outlines supervisory processes of juvenile offenders move on community service orde rs Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) Sets out the constitution and jurisdiction of the Childrens Court Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 (NSW) This act explicitly has made parents responsible for the past and future actions of their children.It has also granted law to stick out powers to remove juvenility people from public places in local political relation operational areas untested Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) An Act to consecrate procedures for dealing with children who commit certain offences through the use of youth justice concourses, upkeeps and warnings instead of dally proceedings and for other purposes 4. Crimes Amendment (Detention After Arrest) Act 1997 (NSW) revise the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) to give well-grounded philosophy powers to detain two-year-old people later on arrest for up to four hours Juvenile Offenders Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (NSW) This act established a new form of prison (juvenile punitory centre) for new-fangled pe ople sixteen years and older. Amendments were made to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), Children (Detention Centres) act 1987 (NSW) and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW).The statues concerning juvenile justice have been created according to external law principles, or amended, to ratify various internationalist conventions of which Australia is a party. Children are recognised internationally as to be interact differently from adults in the criminal justice system, acknowledging that children progress through a number of developmental stages as part of the process of becoming adults. Such international law which recognises the need to treat juveniles differentlycomprise of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) unify Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty A separa te juvenile justice system grants safeguards to protect children and one-year-old people, base on international rules for the administration of juvenile justice. In NSW this separate juvenile justice system is administered by the section of Juvenile Justice, whose mission greenback is to contribute go and opportunities for juvenile offenders to meet their responsibilities and lend a smell release of get along offending5.Diversionary SchemesIt is clear that there are a variety of statutes modulate the operation of juvenile justice in New South Wales. Of particular importance is the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). This act came into effect on April 6th 1998. The objects of this act aim to establish a scheme that provides an alternative process to court proceedings for dealing with children who commit certain offences through the use of youth justice conferences, cautions and warnings6. That is, change the way the criminal justice system deals with young offenders by dive rting young offenders away from the court and juvenile justice centres, to alternative forms of intervention (see appendix six for full objects of the act and appendix septette for the sentencing of juveniles an illustration of when diversion tush occur).The Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) gives a hierarchical scheme of alternatives to court hearings and custody these schemes from the lowest train of the hierarchy to the tallest aim of the hierarchy are Warnings enjoin by the NSW PoliceFormal cautions directed by the NSW Police callowness Justice Conferences directed by the Department of Juvenile JusticeThese diversions from the court and juvenile justice centres can be employed for the vast studyity of offences commit by young people. However, inSection 8 of the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) the offences which are cover/not covered by the statute are outline. Offences that cause the death of a person, indecent assault, aggravated indecent assault, acts of indecency (see appendix eight for exposition and scope), aggravated acts of indecency, sexual intercourse (or attempt of) with a child between ten and sixteen years, attempts or acts of bestiality, serious dose offences and motor vehicle offences where the young person is old enough to hold a liberty or permit under the Motor Traffic Act 1909 (NSW) are not covered by the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW)7 and are so dealt with by the court system.WarningsUnder the Young Offenders Act law officers have the discretion to give young offenders warnings for minor summary offences that do not involve military unit or related issues. An example of such a minor summary offence is the use of foul language in public. A warning can be issued at every time or place and does not require that the young person maintain the offence, although, the police must(prenominal)iness record the time, place and genius of the offence and the offenders be and gender. The analyze official must take travel to ensure that the child under hold ups the purpose, nature and effect of the warning8.CautionsUnder the Young Offenders Act police have the discretion to issue a pro forma caution for more serious offences covered under the Young Offenders Act. The young offender must admit the offence (after being addicted the fortune for healthy advice) and combine to being cautioned. If a young person chooses not to be cautioned, they will be dealt with by a court. When making the decision to issue a caution, the police officer must consider (a) the seriousness of the offence,(b) the degree of violence involved in the offence,(c) the harm ca employ to either victim,(d) the number and nature of any offences committed by the child and the number of times the child has been dealt with under this Act, (e) any othermatter the police officer thinks detach in the batch. 9 A maximum of triplet cautions can be given to any one person. A number of individuals, on request by the offender, can be present wh en the caution is given, including (a) the child and the person bragging(a) the caution,(b) a person responsible for the child,(c) members of the childs family or increase family,(d) an adult chosen by the child,(e) a respected member of the community chosen by the child, if the person arranging the caution is of the opinion that it is suspend in the circumstances to do so, (f) an interpreter,(g) if the child has a communication or cognitive disability, an conquerly skilled person, (h) if the child is under care, a kindly worker or other health professional, (i) if the child is subject to probation or a community service order, the childs supervising officer, (j) if the investigating official is not giving the caution, the investigating official. 10 As a result of a caution, the young person can be asked to draw up an apology to any victim(s) of the offence, but no other conditions or penalties may be imposed on the child. early days Justice ConferencesThe aim of the scheme of offspring Justice Conferences, empowered by the Young Offenders Act, is to encourage young people to take responsibility for their actions and to discourage them from reoffending. This process allows issues to be communicate in a non-threatening environment and enables the youth to gain access to suspend go, such as counselling, to help them resolve the underlying problems. The offender must consent to the conference, and must be given a chance for legal advice in the first place consenting to the conference. The decision to hold a conference can be made by the director of Public Prosecutions or upon court order. The decision to hold a conference is based on the following factors (a) the seriousness of the offence,(b) the degree of violence involved in the offence,(c) the harm caused to any victim,(d) the number and nature of any offences committed by the child and the number of times the child has been dealt with under this Act, (e) any other matter the Director or court thi nks appropriate in the circumstances. 11 The Department of Juvenile Justice is responsible for the operation of youth justice conference in NSW. Youth justice conferencing offices are based mostly in Juvenile Justice Community Offices throughout NSW. Those usually present at the conference can include, the conference convenor, the young offender, the parents/guardians of the offender, other members of the offenders family, the victim (if they choose to attend), fend people of the victim and a police officer.The result of a Youth Justice Conference is the creation of an out infer plan, a realistic and achievable plan agreed on by the offender and victim. for each one return plan is different, and may include the following (a) the making of an viva or written apology, or both, to any victim, (b) the making of reparation to any victim or the community, (c) involvement by the child in an appropriate program,(d) the taking of actions directed towards the reintegration of the child into the community. 12 If a young person satisfactorily completes an outcome plan, no farther action can be taken against him or her for that offence. If this is not the case, the administrator returns the matter to the referring body which then deals with the young person as if the conference had never occurred.Childrens Court Sentencing OptionsYoung offenders are referred to the childrens court empowered under Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) and Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987(NSW) for the most serious indictable offences, such as murder, manslaughter, sexual offences, domestic violence, drug trafficking and any other offences that result in the death of a person (i.e. all offences which are not covered under the Young Offenders Act). The court has limited sentencing options, set out in a hierarchy of available penalties in order of severity. Sentencing hierarchies have been introduced in order to guide the court in selecting an appropriate penalty and to provide a great er degree of consistency in sentencing. Some statutes prevent the court from imposing a time at one level un little it is satisfied that a sentence at alower level of the hierarchy is inappropriate. Such requirements have been designed to require magistrates to justify the use of more severe penalties, to conjure up the use of non-custodial options, and to reinforce the use of cargo area as a sentence of last relapse.The sanctions available to the Childrens Court in NSW, in order of decreasing severity, include the following detention in a juvenile justice centre or juvenile correction facility suspended detentioncommunity service order, attention centre orderprobation (usually up to two years) or other supervise order fine or honorarium and total behavior stickfine or compensationreferral to a youth conferencing schemegood behavior bondundertaking to observe certain conditionsdismissal of charges with or without either a reprimand or a conviction recorded The objectives of sentencing, defined as, retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation have a certain difficulty in being met when sentencing juveniles. Instead, sentencing aims to meet the following objectives Responsibility intent, excuse, impairment, motive. This mitigating factor of responsibility is changed when use to young offenders, due to the notion of reduced responsibility because of age symmetry sanction applied by the court needs to take account of the seriousness of the crime and responsibility of the offender Equality consistency in punishment.Frugality sentence imposed should be the least restrictive that is appropriate Rehabilitation the court must take into account the chances of rehabilitation for the offender As well as an outline of the options available when sentencing and the objectives that must be carry throughd when sentencing, the key issue that remains to be examined is the actual use of these sentencing options. Appendix Nine tabulates the various court o utcomes from the Childrens Court in 2000. famed is the other proven outcomes category, comprising a total of 15.1 per cent of the outcomes. This category includes such outcomes as apprehended violence orders, compensation andcommittals to higher courts. The next major category is dismissed with a caution, comprising 13.8 per cent of the court outcomes. The offence categories where dismissals are most frequently used are public order offences and drug offences. Most notable is the use of detention, the sixth most frequently used outcome, 9.8 per cent of the time.Detention Centers Juvenile Justice Centers and Juvenile Correction Centres In some jurisdictions there are certain legislative requirements when the court is considering sentencing a young person to a period of institutionalisation. Generally utterance, the court must be satisfied that no other sentencing option is appropriate, that is, the offender has not responded to the different preventive and rehabilitation methods av ailable or the offender has committed a serious indictable offence and no other sentencing option is feasible. It is clear that the use of detention is meant to be a last resort measure.The detention of young offenders is driven by several competing rationales, including deterrence, retribution, community arctic and rehabilitation. The relative emphasis situated upon these will shape the overall electric charge of detention-centre policy and have a major impact on the nature of the incarceration experience. Many counseling and education programs are available in Juvenile Justice Centers and Juvenile Correction Centers, like, Kairong Juvenile Correction deftness and Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre in New South Wales. It is judge that these young offenders will be able to exit the system with the very(prenominal) skills and vocational opportunities as any other youth, as they offer galore(postnominal) services to incarcerated offenders, such as drug and alcohol counseling service seducational opportunitiesvocational programshealth programs and servicesrecreational programsindependent spiritedness programsarts and crafts coursescultural programs special services for Ab authorized offenders legal servicesIt is clear that detention facilities, as required by legislation, provide a secure, stable environment with an accent on rehabilitation andreintegration into the community. Importance is placed on upholding the rights and dignity of juvenile offenders and maintaining family links.Juvenile Justice Fairness, Equality and JusticeThe three key legal notions of fairness, compare and justice are natural when assessing any issue within the Australian legal system. It is said that these three notions are the speculative cornerstones of the entire legal system, with each decision (whether they be statute law or common law decisions, decisions by government departments or decisions made by law enforcers) made within the legal system, hinging on fairness, luciferity and justice. It is fundamental, when assessing the issue of juvenile justice as a current criminal justice issue, to consider fairness, comparability and justice, independently, even though these three notions, in operation, are interdependent. The following is an assessment of juvenile justice in relation to the specific issues which have been outlined in this study, thus far. These specific facets of juvenile justice are its relevant regulatory legislation, diversionary schemes, the Childrens Court and Detention Centers. EqualityMany individuals argue that equality before the law is the most fundamental and important aspect of our legal system. Equality before the law means that all people who come before courts are treated equally regardless of their individual site this is formal equality before the law. But equality also suggests that everyone is treated the same and to achieve equal interposition, mitigating circumstances must be taken into account during the legal pro cess, so that equality of outcomes can be achieved.The statues regulating juvenile justice all take into account the age of criminal responsibility before the law, and the fact that being a juvenile does in fact reduce responsibility before the law. Because of this, formal equality for juveniles can be achieved, as all juveniles are considered to have reduced criminal responsibility due to the fact that they are indeed juveniles.The imposing of formal equality, which is clearly defined in the various statutes regulating juvenile justice, does not occur during the operation of the statutes by law enforcement officials, such as police officers. It is evident that nonage racial groups can be discriminated against at the law enforcement level, that is, due to the police. During the documentary, Insight Juvenile Justice, produced by SBS Australia and screened by SBS Australia on bunt 3rd 2000, which was documented by reporter, Vivan Ultman, raises many issues in regards to the treatmen t of ethnic minorities within the juvenile justice system. Chris Cueen a criminologist in New South Wales believes there is a clear reason for the over representation of minority groups in Juvenile Justice Centers, stating the clear answer to that is the most marginalized kids in society are the ones that end up locked up, its a grammatical construction on unemployment and ethnicity.Former magistrate of the Childrens Court in NSW, Rod Blackmore, states that they (ethnic minority juveniles) arent being dealt with more harshly by the courts, or by the system, its rather a gate keeping problem, whether theyve been diverted in the first place by the police or they are quick being charged and arrested by the police. Because of the lack of diversion by the police, who do not utilize diversionary schemes empowered under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), such as an on the spot warning or a more serious formal caution, a clear unlikeness has resulted leaving more ethnic minorities, su ch as autochthonal Australians, in juvenile correction facilities. This overrepresentation, specifically to endemic Australians, is clearly illustrated in the statistical data comprised by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, shown in Appendix Ten.Yet, this over representation could be avoided if the police force took active steps to ensure equality in treating indigenous Australians. Over policing in areas of high indigenous population could be reduced to decrease the tensions between indigenous juveniles and the police. In an article written by Liz Gooch, titled Aboriginal prison Rates Increasing in The Age on the 12th of July 2005, the centre is on indigenous juveniles who are, as quoted, 20 times more presumable to be detained than other Australians. not only this, such unequal treatment could affect their future significantly, possibly leading to further convictions later in life.Yet, of importance, is the inequality of ethnic minorities within the community pri or to enter the Juvenile Justice System. In New South Wales, groups of indigenous Australians and those from non-English speaking backgrounds, are portrayed by the media as being disadvantaged and classifiable offenders. Whether or not this true, this has a strong bearing on the factors which lead individuals, like these minority groups, to commit crimes. The result of negative public image can often lead to the justification of groups such as indigenous Australians, to commit crimes. But, active steps have been taken to ensure equality of all juvenile offenders who appear before the Childrens Court, as all juveniles have access to the Legal Aid Youth Hotline, which gives free advice to juveniles at all stages in the juvenile justice system.Not only this, during diversionary schemes such as cautions and Youth Conferencing young offenders may elect individuals to be present at such schemes, such as interpreters, to ensure equality of opportunity for all young offenders. Equality of opportunity is further encouraged through the use of various educational and vocational tuition programs during incarceration periods. This ensures that when juveniles exist their incarceration sentence, they are at equal (or near equal) status with other individuals, as if they had not been through the process.There is also indirect discrimination created by the notion of equality before the law. An Australian Law Reform Commission and Human Rights and Equal luck Commission join report, Seen and Heard Priority for Children in the legal mental process13, identified a number of problem areas with respect to young people. matchless of the most important problems was their relationship with police, the inadequacy of courtroom facilities and inadequate training for criminal justice personnel in dealing with young people. Although this report was created some time ago, improvement is a process of continuity, which may never be fully achieved. FairnessFairness refers to the legitima te and proper take in the performance of an act or duty. In regards to Juvenile Justice there are many instances when unfair treatment in the look of the law may occur. hotshot such example ofthis is the provision of legal advice upon detainment of a juvenile. In the past, when a child asked to speak to a lawyer, police had sometimes given the young offender a telephone word of honor and told them to look one up, often outside business hours. In the case of R v Clifford Cortez14 the court found that this was not fair radiation pattern and that the custody manager must inform the child about the free Legal Aid Youth Hotline and help them to access it. In this case, Justice Dowd created common law precedent, when he stated Young people aged 17 rarely have a solicitor and rarely have a contact number for one available. It is as absurd as suggesting they might contact their architect or dietary advisory.The whole innovation of the hotline is that young people would know that is f ree, that it is available, and that they would be able to obtain advice there and then. Failure to make it available is a clear breach of the Act and regulation but, more importantly, in breach of the requirement of fairness to the young person. It is clear that in an effort to allow fairness during the juvenile justice process, the right to legal advice must be upheld.Furthermore, in the case R v Phung and Hunyh15 the importance of the appropriate pledge person was enforced. In this case, seventeen year old Johnny Phung was suspected of committing an armed robbery and fatal shooting. Police arrested him and conducted two interviews while he was in custody. The these interviews, Phung made admissions about his involvement with the offences. Phung, was not granted an appropriate support person during his questionings. The support person in the first interview with Detective senior Constable Quigg was Phungs 21 year old cousin, who did not have strong English (and too was intimidat ed by the police).The second support person was a Salvation Army Officer who was a odd to Phung and did not have any opportunity to talk to him privately. When Phung was charged and brought to Court, justice wood refused to admit the interview transcripts, finding that the police had acted improperly by not providing an appropriate support person for Phung. Justice Wood stated I would exclude the evidence, since I am of the view that the apparent chastening of those concerned to secure compliance with the regime gives rise to an unfairness, and outweighs the probative quantify of the admissions obtained, powerful as they might have been. It is clear that in the efforts topromote fairness in the juvenile justice system, an appropriate support person must be present during the police detainment.Particular unfairness can result in the Childrens Court Sentencing Process, with the most important favor in sentencing juveniles being rehabilitation. This was illustrated in a case that w ent to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, R v GDP16. P was a 15 year old boy who, with two friends, caused extensive damage to a car yard and construction company in the western suburbs of Sydney, to the nurse of more than $1.5 million. P was arrested by the police and made admissions in two records of the interview. Ps charge could have been determined in the childrens court however, the court used its discretion to commit P to stand trial in the District Court. P pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months detention. A successful appeal was lodged in the Court of Criminal Appeal and the sentence was reduced to 12 months probation. Justice Matthews, in her judgement, made a number of quests concerning the principles of sentencing young people. She noted that P was a first offender and had received a favourable court report, school report and psychiatric report.He had rehabilitated himself to a substantial degree since the original offence by not reoffending and by r eturning to school. Justice Matthews found that the original judge who had imposed the custodial sentence had been defective on two accounts. Although the sentence of 12 months detention was within the range of appropriate penalties, it did not take into account the youth of the offender or his or her look of rehabilitation. Not only this, the sentencing judge had failed to distinguish the minor role play by P in the offences, he had the same sentence as one co-offender but had played a substantially less role. different cases since GDP have also been significant in upholding the importance of rehabilitation, including R v Wilkie17, R v Vitros18 and R v ALH19. It is clear that in order to produce a fair outcome for each individual, mitigating circumstances must be taken into account as well any other particular circumstances which surround the case.Examples such as these are extensive, with numerous cases of unfairness during process due to inadequacy of complying with various sp ecifications, outlined in statutes such as the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987(NSW) and the Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW). JusticeJustice is a subjective term depending on the condition it is used in. Everyone has an individual idea on what they personally believe justice is. Justice takes into account the notions of equality and fairness, as well as notions of access, virtue and human rights.Criminal law is said to operate to right the wrongs of individuals in the community, on behalf of the state. It is a matter of public law, where the state prosecution acts on behalf of all members of society to give the most appropriate retribution for the individuals wrong to society. Yet, Youth Conferences as a diversionary scheme are questioned in their ability to achieve justice for the individual affected by the crime, and thus justice for society. In 2003, 1250 Youth Justice Conferences were run as alternatives to the Childrens Court. Through a youth conference, an individual experiences shame in apparent motion of the look of intimates and must experience a form of repentance in front of these intimates. It is said to achieve justice for young offenders as it is not excessively confrontational and produces an achievable outcome plan, agreed upon by both the offender and the victim. But, the question remains as to if this is in actuality an achievement of justice.Conferences are considered by many to be a progressive approach to juvenile justice because they recognise the rights of young offenders, their victims, and both their families and community to decide what to do about the damage caused by the offenders actions. They also provide a forum for discussing and addressing many of the complex issues associated with young peoples offending. In a documentary, titled Joes Conference what happens at a youth justice conference, produced by the Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, in 2000, depicts the process of youth justice conferences as it follows the stor y of Joe, a youth offender who stole a car, preceded to destroy the car and was then caught by the police, and sent to a youth justice conference. At the conclusion of the documentary, Joes agreed outcome plan includes community service and undertaking vocational training at a certifiedmechanics work shop. No compensation is rewarded for the victim, who has lost his car. Although agreed upon by both the offender and the victim, justice, in the eyes of many, may have not been achieved.Yet, contrary to this opinion, in an article feature on the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, NSW, titled Re-offending by young people cautioned or conferenced, released on the 3rd of January 2007, found that Juveniles who receive a caution or a youth justice conference are less likely to re-offend than those who are referred to the Childrens Court. Using statistics given by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the article states that Forty-two per cent of those cautioned and 58 per cent of thos e dealt with at a youth justice conference had a further offence proved against them in the Childrens Court over the five-year follow up period and only a small proportion of those cautioned (5.2 per cent) or conferenced (10.8 per cent) committed an offence serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence within five years of being cautioned or conferenced. It is clear that Youth Conferencing can achieve justice, because re-offending rates are decreased.Not only this, justice is achieved for individuals who are able to confront the offender and express their opinions. This is depicted in the article titled Justice in the carrell with no proscribe, written by Jock Cheetham, which appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald on the 29th of October, 2004. Journalist, Jock Cheetham, observes the Youth Conference, on condition that no one except the convener is identified. The Youth Justice Conference was held to create a successful outcome plan for the offender, who is known as Dave, for offe nces larceny, vandalism and private road under the influence of alcohol. This article allows the understanding of how Youth Justice Conferences do in fact achieve justice, as it states how the victims felt as a result of the Conference, when the victims and Dave agreed that the offender, Dave pay $500 and do 20 hours community work at a Police and Citizens Youth Club. One of the victims, known as Jacquline states, But I was still a bit angry at the end, I still feel he got off a bit easily. It was good because we felt it was over and done with. It doesnt wipe it all away, but you feel part of the process.It is clear that Youth Justice Conferences do achieve justice for victims and allow rehabilitation, and thus justice, for offenders. Not only this, by diverting cases away from the Childrens Court, a more than greater resource efficiency is gained and greateraccess for all young offenders is promoting, furthering the justice provided. Juvenile Justice Centers and other correctiona l detention facilities, do not achieve justice. Chris Cureen, a criminologist, states the most you can say about imprisonment is it takes a young person out of circulation for a period of time and so they are no as likely to commit an offence while theyre coffin nail bars, but in legal injury of deterrence they dont work, they dont stop other kids from committing offences and they certainly dont stop those same kids from committing offences when they get out. Juvenile Justice Centers are said to teach crime so that young offenders are more skilful criminals upon release in essence, Criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland, theory of differential association.It is easiest and most pleasing to society to put youthful offenders behind bars, but perhaps justice is not achieved by doing this, as it hardens the young offender and fosters further criminal behaviour. Yet, the question remains as to wherefore incarceration facilities offer skills for children to earn a good living upon release . Chris Cueen, states, One of the most profound ironies out of something like this is that somewhere like Kariong (the highest gage juvenile justice centre in NSW) has the best employment opportunities, so you lock someone up in sort of the maximum protective cover environment, and there at the end point you begin to five them skills or education that shouldve been offered at the very start of the process. Juvenile Justice Centers offer educational programs to rehabilitate young offenders, but too, foster crime. It is restricted on each individual as to whether the correctional facility is in effect(p) or detrimental to the offender. Furthermore, laws regulating Juvenile Justice uphold international human rights standards, such as the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child (CROC).The statues regulating juvenile justice provide for non-discrimination (article 4), the best interests of the child (article 3), survival and development (article 6) and participation in decision mak ing (article 12). Justice is achieved for young offenders as statues regulating offenders protect ratified human rights conventions. Not only this, justice for juvenile offenders is achieved as it is an offence to publish or broadcast the name or other identifying characteristics of a young person appearing before or convicted by the childrens court. This achieves justice as it avoids future stigmatisation of the young offender and also by ensuring maximumopportunities for personal growth and development. end pointOverall juvenile justice law, as assessed in the previous section, promotes fairness, equality and justice. The common law aims for rehabilitation of offenders, but will not embrace from more serious sentencing options, such as detention. If this is continually maintained as the driving force behind the Juvenile Justice System, the pinnacle point of the effectiveness will be reached. For the system to be most effective, a balance must be achieved between the offender and sentencing options, remaining in proportion. Although great improvements are needed in areas of dealing with minority offenders to achieve formal equality before the law, as well as further strict enforcement of principles set out in Juvenile Justice regulatory statues to achieve fairness, total justice, and the utmost effectiveness of the system will be reached.BibliographyBooksCunneen. C, White. R. Juvenile Justice Youth and Crime in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2002Loughman, J. Mackinnon. G, Hot payoff 49 Juvenile Justice, Legal Information Access Center, NSW, 2004Findlay. M, Odgers. S, Yeo. S, Australian Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press, NSW, 1999Healey. K, Issues in rescript Volume 90 Youth and The Law, The Spinney Press, NSW, 1998Healey. K, Issues in Society Volume 40 Juvenile Justice, The Spinney Press, NSW, 1995Department of Juvenile Justice, Whats adventure in Juvenile Justice in NSW?,Department of Juvenile Justice, Sydney, 2000Ardagh. A, Yout h Conferencing Contrasting Models, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, 1996OConnor, I. and Sweetapple. P, Children in Justice, Longman Cheshire, NSW, 1988Western. J, Lynch. M, Ogilvie. E, Understanding Youth Crime An Australian Study, Ashgate, NSW, 2003Roberts. A, Juvenile Justice Sourcebook Past, Present and Future, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004Cornu. Daryle, Miller. A, Robinson. S, Kelly. T, Steed. K, Cambridge Legal Studies HSC, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2006Gleeson. W, Brogan. M, Siow, V, Hayes. M, Thiering, N. Heinemann Legal Studies HSC Course, Heinemann, NSW, 2003Brassil. D, Brassil. B, jump out HSC Legal Studies, Pascal Press, NSW, 2005Draper. H, Legal Studies HSC, Longman, Melbourne, 2002McCarthy. J, Suter. K, Watt. R, Legal Studies 2, Macmillan, South Yarra, 2000DocumentariesVivian Ultman, Insight Juvenile Justice, SBS Australia screen on March 3rd 2000Fiona Cochrane, Youth Express Is Justice For all?, Marcom Projects, 1993Joes Conference what ha ppens at a youth justice conference, Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, 2000ArticlesLiz Gooch, Aboriginal Prison Rates Increasing in The Age on the 12th of July 2005Jock Cheetham, Justice in the cell with no bars, The Sydney Morning Herald on the 29th of October, 2004.Re-offending by young people cautioned or conferenced, Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, NSW, 3rd of January 2007CasesAccessed via http//beta.austlii.edu.au/R v Clifford Cortez (Unreported Supreme Court, 3 October 2002)R v Phung and Huynh 2001 NSWSC 115 revise 15/05/2001R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112R v Wilkie, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported 2 July 1992R v Vitros, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported 3 September 1993R v ALH, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported 26 May 1995 step Cases in the NSW Childrens Court are heard in camera, and could thus not be used in the reportWebsiteshttp//beta.austlii.edu.au/, accessed 23/2/07http//home.comcast.net/ddemelo/crime/differ.html, accessed 23/2/07www.aic.g ov.au, accessed 23/2/07www.djj.gov.au, accessed 23/2/07www.abs.gov.au, accessed 23/2/07