Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Cross-national comparison of youth justice systems

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Cross-national comparison of youth justice systems"— 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 What we’ll consider Introduction to the original study
Comparison of youth justice systems: Overall system principles Age thresholds Disposals – including how others lower custody rates

3 The YJB Study 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

4 93 Countries 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 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 System approaches: Models
Welfare vs Justice Alternative models > “young” vs “offender”?

6 Calvadino and Dignan 2006 Model Basic features Countries Theory*
Welfare Focus 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 Justice Accountability, 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 Scotland Interactionist /Left Idealism Restorative justice Focus on accountability and reintegration, reparation and mediation for victims, diversion, decarceration New Zealand Left Realism Neo-correctionalist Responsibility of parents and children, early intervention and prevention, accountability to victim, reparation, systems management, focus on effectiveness England and Wales Right Realism

7 System approaches: Pressures
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

8 System approaches: Pressures

9 Daily Star 1/3/93 Reminders like what happened in last week’s episode

10 System approaches: Principles
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

11 Age of criminal responsibility
England and Wales England and Wales

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

13 Age of criminal majority
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

14 Custody rates England & Wales 1.2 - Australia 0.1 35 Austria 1.6
Unit % of prison population under 18 ( ) Per 100k under 18 in population (2008) England & Wales 1.2 - Australia 0.1 35 Austria 1.6 Belgium 0.7 China (March 2005) 1.4 Croatia Denmark 0.2 Finland 0.3 3.6 France 18.6 Germany 1.4 23.1 Italy 11.3 Japan Under * Netherlands 1.5 51.3 New Zealand 0.6 Norway Portugal Under Scotland 33.0 South Africa 69.0 Sweden 4.1 Turkey USA 0.4 263.0 * Not including classification schools and training schools

15 Lowering Custody Community based alternatives
Enshrine last resort in law More welfare based processes Community-based institutions Policies discouraging court use Compulsory use of suspended prison sentences Tight control of remand

16 Concluding thoughts 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”

Download ppt "Cross-national comparison of youth justice systems"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google