Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Cross-national comparison of youth justice systems Professor Neal Hazel Director, Centre for Social Research (CSR.Salford) Helsinki Foundation conference.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Cross-national comparison of youth justice systems Professor Neal Hazel Director, Centre for Social Research (CSR.Salford) Helsinki Foundation conference."— Presentation transcript:

1 Cross-national comparison of youth justice systems Professor Neal Hazel Director, Centre for Social Research (CSR.Salford) Helsinki Foundation conference on children deprived of liberty in Central and Eastern Europe Budapest, 4-5 December 2014

2 1.Introduction to the original study 2.Comparison of youth justice systems: –Overall system principles –Age thresholds –Disposals – including how others lower custody rates What we’ll consider

3 Hazel N (2008) Cross-national review of youth justice. London: Youth Justice Board Funded by the Youth Justice Board Literature based study Comparative analysis 146 Jurisdictions across 93 countries The YJB Study

4 England & Wales Algeria Andorra Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain Barbados Belarus Belgium Bosnia & Herzegovina Brunei Bulgaria Canada Cayman Islands Chile China Columbia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus 93 Countries Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Egypt Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Kazakhstan Kenya South Korea Kuwait Latvia Lebanon Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malaysia Malta Mauritius Mexico Moldova Mongolia Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Northern Ireland Norway Panama Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia San Marino Saudi Arabia Scotland Senegal Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Syria Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad & Tobago Turkey Ukraine USA Zambia

5 Welfare vs Justice Alternative models > “young” vs “offender”? System approaches: Models

6 Calvadino and Dignan 2006 ModelBasic featuresCountriesTheory* WelfareFocus on needs of dependent child, unified care/criminal jurisdiction, diagnosis and treatment, informal procedures, indeterminate sentences Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Japan, USA (pre-1960s) Positivism JusticeAccountability, focus on deeds of responsible agent, just deserts, criminal jurisdiction, procedural formality, punishment USA (post-1960s)Classical Minimal intervention Avoidance of ‘net-widening’, diversion from criminal proceedings, decarceration, community alternatives ScotlandInteractionist /Left Idealism Restorative justice Focus on accountability and reintegration, reparation and mediation for victims, diversion, decarceration New ZealandLeft Realism Neo- correctionalist Responsibility of parents and children, early intervention and prevention, accountability to victim, reparation, systems management, focus on effectiveness England and WalesRight Realism

7 Pressures towards treating as young: International obligations –UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (not US) –UN Standards for processes and custody –European Convention and European Court –Committee of Ministers recommendation (inc “Guidelines on child friendly justice” Pressures towards treating as offenders: Media panics > Public opinions Political campaigns Result Systems built up in a piecemeal fashion Systems very varied System approaches: Pressures

8

9 Daily Star 1/3/93

10 Preventing offending Acting in best interests of the child Parens patrae Children in trouble needing welfare Minimal intervention Protection of society Education and resocialisation Social integration System approaches: Principles

11 Age of criminal responsibility England and Wales

12 ….can be altered by:  Early intervention  Legislation on sub-criminal behaviour  Doli-incapax  Treating offenders as welfare cases Age of criminal responsibility

13 More of a consensus around 18 years old Some countries above that age ….can be altered by:  Transfer to adult courts  Extending juvenile processes and disposals Age of criminal majority

14 Custody rates Unit % of prison population under 18 ( ) Per 100k under 18 in population (2008) England & Wales1.2- Australia0.135 Austria1.6- Belgium0.7- China(March 2005) 1.4- Croatia1.6- Denmark0.2- Finland France Germany Italy JapanUnder *0.1 Netherlands New Zealand0.6- Norway0.1- PortugalUnder Scotland South Africa Sweden Turkey1.2- USA * Not including classification schools and training schools

15 1.Community based alternatives 2.Enshrine last resort in law 3.More welfare based processes 4.Community-based institutions 5.Policies discouraging court use 6.Compulsory use of suspended prison sentences 7.Tight control of remand Lowering Custody

16 Recognition that no model system – all facing pressures Respond in different ways – there are alternatives –Principles, policies and practices Can be analysed as choice of “young” or “offender” Concluding thoughts


Download ppt "Cross-national comparison of youth justice systems Professor Neal Hazel Director, Centre for Social Research (CSR.Salford) Helsinki Foundation conference."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google