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”