Lec 7 Youth Justice Models and Their Implications

Introduction

The lecture begins with an adjustment to the PowerPoint slides, which have transitioned from an unsupported format (PPTN) to a usable format (PPTX). The instructor expresses gratitude for the audience's understanding and support as they work through these technical difficulties.

Setting the Stage for Today's Lecture

The session will focus on the topic of youth justice and social control. Students are encouraged to recall their experiences as 10-year-olds, imagining scenarios where a youthful indiscretion leads to serious consequences. The instructor poses a hypothetical involving the arrest of a 10-year-old for disruptive behavior, emphasizing the severity of the outcomes within the context of youth justice systems globally, particularly in the United Kingdom.

Overview of Youth Justice Systems

The session outlines a comparative discussion of varying youth justice models around the world. The structure of the class will include a lecture session until approximately 12:30, with a short break included. An extended break will occur later for discussions about the final exam.

Models of Youth Justice

The lecture will explore different models of youth justice, characterized as follows:

Welfare Oriented Model

  1. Historical Roots:

    • Originates in the early 19th and 20th centuries, with significant adoption in Britain and the United States.

    • Fundamental principle of the welfare-oriented model is that the state acts as a guardian for children, particularly those in adverse conditions.

  2. Parens Patriae:

    • The concept that youth courts hold jurisdiction over minors seen as dependent or neglected, as well as those who have violated the law.

    • The belief that youth crime is symptomatic of parental neglect and inadequate care, suggesting that appropriate intervention should be protective rather than punitive.

  3. Function of Youth Courts:

    • Youth justice within this framework aims to rehabilitate rather than punish, viewing the young offender as a victim of circumstance.

    • Insistence on education and rehabilitation, with options for the youth facilities mirroring school environments but often resembling prisons in practice.

  4. Critique:

    • Despite good intentions, some welfare-oriented practices have historically harmed youth due to systemic shortcomings and colonial biases.

    • Example: Australia historically had separate institutions for Indigenous youth, perceived as beneficial but ultimately deemed harmful.

    • New Zealand's family group conferences represent a current, effective welfare-oriented approach, embracing family involvement in decisions about youth offenders.

Legalistic Model

  1. Philosophical Orientation:

    • Prioritizes fair application of the law, focusing on legal rights and ensuring young people are treated similarly to adults in the justice system.

    • A push towards emphasizing procedural fairness and legal protections for youth offenders.

  2. Historical Example - Yugoslavia:

    • A legalistic model observed in which minors aged 16-18 were treated similarly to adults, erasing distinctions between youth and adult offenders in practice.

    • Lack of separate youth courts indicates strict adherence to legal norms without consideration for child welfare principles.

  3. Contemporary Perspective:

    • Advocates for legalistic frameworks argue for maintaining young people's rights alongside holding them accountable, stressing individual rights alongside community safety.

    • Case examples illustrate the tension between treating youth offenders fairly and maintaining public safety.

  4. Italy's Youth Justice System:

    • Misconceptions about youth justice emerged from outdated research, indicating the importance of up-to-date contextual understanding.

    • Italy's probation system provides a unique opportunity for young offenders to avoid convictions, showcasing a blend of legalistic and welfare-oriented principles but requiring careful examination of current practices.

Corporatist Model

  1. Integration of Legalism and Welfare:

    • Involves cooperation between legalistic and welfare-oriented approaches, prevalent in Canada and the United States in their youth justice systems.

    • Focuses on how youth laws incorporate both welfare elements (youth well-being) and legal standards (right to a fair legal process).

  2. Specific Examples in Canada:

    • Exploration of specific provisions within the Youth Criminal Justice Act, where maximum sentences reflect a prioritization of youth rehabilitation yet allow for adult-like treatment under certain conditions.

    • Discussion on cases such as Centoya Brown, emphasizing how political and legal systems influence sentencing based on age and crime severity.

Participatory Model

  1. Community Involvement:

    • Stresses community-based initiatives that work to integrate youth back into society without necessarily invoking formal legal intervention.

    • Examples from countries like Cuba and China illustrate diverse implementations of this model, which attempts to manage youth behavior more locally rather than judicially.

Conclusion

The lecture concludes with a reminder of the importance of current data and critiques of outdated paradigms in youth justice research. After a short break, the conversation will resume with more on participatory models of youth justice and further elaboration of the discussed frameworks, while students are encouraged to consider how these differing models might manifest in various contexts worldwide.