Tackling youth crime

Media reporting

Children have long been demonised, and their crimes sensationalised, by mainstream media outlets in western societies. This has been exacerbated by the 24-hour news cycle and social media. Recent reporting in Queensland has tended to prioritise the voices and experiences of victims of crime, which is an important factor to consider when crafting effective youth justice policy, but the volume of media commentary on youth crime in Queensland – digitally, in print, and on TV – is disproportionate to the incidence of crimes committed by children. Reporting can also inflame community tensions, distort perceptions of youth offending, and drive calls for more punitive approaches. Indeed, a recent analysis of media reporting of youth crime in Queensland identified the creation of widespread concern and panic through the news media, with sensationalised headlines focusing on exceptional cases of crime, calls for harsh changes to the law, and portraying youth crime as rapidly increasing both in incidence and severity. There have also been numerous accounts of vigilantism and growing acceptance of it within coverage.

Meanwhile, the voices and life experiences of young people caught up in the criminal justice system are mostly absent from media coverage. The way media reports youth crime frequently obscures the fact that young people in the criminal justice system are often highly disadvantaged, traumatised, and vulnerable, with many being victims of crime themselves. Queensland Government statistics show a large proportion of these young people have disabilities, mental health and behavioral disorders, have been impacted by domestic and family violence, live in unstable or unsuitable accommodation, and have little or no engagement with education or employment. Many are also in the care of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, raising questions about the role of the state when acting in loco parentis (legal responsibility to partly take on the role and responsibilities of a parent) when advancing arguments about parental responsibility for youth crime.

The majority of young people in the criminal justice system also identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Furthermore, over 60% of children in detention in Queensland identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, meaning that First Nations people aged 10-17 are 23 times more likely to be in detention than their non-Indigenous peers.

Harms of the criminal justice response

Despite assertions in the media that Queensland is ‘soft’ on youth crime and is doing little to address it, the state currently locks up more children than anywhere else in Australia. It also spends vast sums doing so, with a new $250 million youth remand centre proposed.

Recent changes to bail laws and an increase in ‘zero-tolerance’ policing has meant that young people are increasingly held in detention in police watchhouses following their arrest. Many of these watchhouses are not adequately equipped to provide care for children, many of whom have complex needs and are often severely traumatised. Recent reporting indicates many watchhouses are overcrowded, while reports of children self-harming, and of a child allegedly sexually assaulted in a watchhouse, are alarming as is the decision to suspend human rights protections from operating as a protective measure against these kinds of abuses.

Aside from the potential harms of detention itself, evidence strongly shows that putting children in detention exacerbates rather than reduces rates of re-offending. Exposure to the criminal justice system from a young age is, among other things, linked to difficulties with employment, finding stable housing, lower educational attainment, and poorer health outcomes. It can also lead to children engaging with crime as a ‘way of life’. Once children are engaged with the criminal justice system, this often locks them into a cycle of more serious and persistent offending and detention. In turn, this has deleterious impacts for them and for community safety.

Punitive responses like detention are typically underpinned by principles of deterrence (along with incapacitation and some limited measure of rehabilitation). A deterrence approach assumes that offenders are rationally considering their behavioural choices and are deterred by the penalties imposed for criminal behaviour. However, neuroscience tells us that even neurotypical brains are not fully developed until around age 25, and the pre-frontal cortex, which is responsible for decision making, is one of the last areas of the brain to develop. Further, emerging evidence suggests that many young people in the youth justice system have neurodevelopmental disorders, further impacting their ability to rationally consider the long-term consequences of their actions.  

The argument relating to incapacitation (“at least if they’re locked up, they can’t hurt anyone”) also rings hollow given almost all young people will at some point be back in the community as young adults, even if adult-like sentences are delivered. While some argue that detention should have a rehabilitative focus, the evidence strongly suggests that our current system does the opposite, meaning that these young people will continue to face the same challenges, and more, that led them to criminal behaviour on their return to the community.

This is not to say that we should not have consequences for serious criminal behaviour committed by young people, but rather we need to consider realistically what will be effective in reducing this behaviour rather than relying on detention as the primary (and sometimes, only) approach.

So called ‘serious repeat offenders’ appear to be driving the punitive political agenda towards youth crime. These young people make up a small proportion of young offenders but undoubtedly cause a great deal of harm and concern for the community. However, simply locking them away for extended periods, without appropriate consideration of their needs, will likely only further marginalise them and do little to allow them to be open to rehabilitation efforts.

Further, continuing with a punitive approach to all youth crime will likely only lead more young people into this ‘serious offender’ category through the negative effects of the criminal justice system  detailed above. Instead, a focus on early intervention and addressing the societal issues that lead to youth offending is needed. For those already minimally involved in criminal behaviour, research suggests that holding young people accountable through restorative approaches can be effective, and making good use of diversionary practices to avoid as much further youth contact with the criminal justice system is paramount.

Addressing youth crime

There is no easy or short-term answer to addressing youth crime. It requires consideration of how best to manage and address the complex needs, physical and mental health challenges, and trauma backgrounds of many young people involved in the youth justice system. Responses must therefore be directed at individual, community, and societal factors in order to provide comprehensive and holistic support for young people and for the communities within which they live – including the needs and interests of those who are victimised by them.

Further shifts towards more punitive responses are not the way forward. Doing so would risk further entrenching more young people into criminal lifestyles at great cost to the community. Addressing the root causes of youth offending demands non-criminal responses. There have been a myriad of systematic reviews and meta-analyses looking at ‘what works’ for youth crime, focusing on particular interventions for dealing with the different motivations, needs, and experiences of young people who commit crimes. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and tackling youth crime requires significant investment in some of the most disenfranchised parts of our community.

The government has already been handed a blueprint for how to deal with youth crime from those working within the system. It is time for both sides of politics to stop playing a harmful short game on youth crime, and instead commit appropriate resources into evidence-based solutions to address this complex issue.