Devil’s Advocate] Should there be

Should there be harsher punishments for young offenders to discourage offending?

FOR Grace Drinan

Harsher punishments such as increased jail sentences and fines will discourage criminal behaviour in young offenders. As young people value their liberty, the threat of jail time may significantly decrease criminal activity in the demographic. Additionally, as young people often have less means to pay fines, as they are less likely to have full time work, with only 47% of respondents to a 2017 survey having a full-time job. Because an inability to pay a fine can lead to a short period of imprisonment, large fines may discourage reoffending. These measures can act as a deterrence for potential criminal activity in the first instance, or even recidivist behaviour.

For example, serious driving offences, such as dangerous driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm are punished by prison time, and less serious, strict liability driving offences such as speeding are punished by an on the spot fine. These fines issued by police officers would also be harsher on young people, who may not have the means to pay such a fine. This may stop them from offending in the future. Furthermore, this is also relevant in the current

COVID-19 climate. In order to deter citizens from breaking restrictions, on the spot fines can be handed out by police. These were largely handed out to young people, who accounted for more than half the fines from March 17 to June 28. These fines are more likely to deter young people from going outside and breaking restrictions, than more lenient penalties, especially considering young people were more likely to lose their job in the pandemic.

Harsher punishments for young offenders will prevent recidivism, especially for summary offences.

Statistics show that young people are more likely to reoffend when convicted of less severe offences such as unlawful entry. Summary offences are the least serious and as such result in less severe penalties. However, according to a BOCSAR report from 2005-2015, 90% of young offenders reoffended for those convicted of unlawful entry. This signifies that more lenient punishments for less serious offences are unsuccessful at discouraging young people from reoffending. This suggests that there should be harsher penalties for these types of crimes to deter young offenders. This is especially the case consider these young people are much more likely to commit summary offences than serious indictable offences.

Harsher punishments for young offenders will reflect community expectations. This is evident in the UK case of the death of James Bulger where community outcry at the violent nature of the crime prompted harsh punishments for the two young offenders, aged 10. Whilst community response is not the most effective deterrent for criminal behaviour, it is something to consider as community values are so integral to the criminal justice system.

Although non-legal mechanisms are also recommended to deter young people from committing crimes, such as education, harsher punishments are the best way to deter young people from criminal behaviour. Harsher punishments can directly impact their liberty, a commodity that young people value highly. While young offenders should not face the same punishments, as adults as it has been recognised, they have decreased cognitive function and ongoing brain development, harsher punishments are necessary. Harsher punishments will prevent young offenders from perpetuating a life of crime and are effective deterrent measures.

AGAINST Morgan Graham

Harsher punishment for young offenders should not be implemented as this does not discourage offending. Harsher punishments would be ineffective in discouraging offending as young people are distinctly different from adults.

Young people have a reduced capacity for selfregulation and recognising the consequences of their actions because their cognitive structure and function is still developing. As a result, they are more susceptible to peer pressure and more likely to engage in impulsive, risk-taking behaviours. These symptoms of youth are exacerbated by social factors such as maltreatment, trauma, mental health issues, developmental delay and community exposure. Their developing cognitive function means that they will not be deterred from offending by the threat of punishment in the same way that most adults are.

Additionally, harsher punishments for young offenders are unnecessary as children are more open to reform due to their ongoing cognitive development.

Strategies focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration can be significantly more effective than harsher punishments, allowing young people to ‘grow out’ of criminal behaviour. Rehabilitation schemes, such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, counselling or anger management practices, can respond to the underlying causes of offending while allowing the young person to remain within their community. These programs facilitate early intervention and can reduce re-offending by addressing behavioural issues through education and skill development. Rehabilitation programs encourage the young offenders to take responsibility for their actions while providing them with effective services which facilitate their reintegration into greater society.

Unlike prison, which adopts a one size fits all approach, community rehabilitation schemes provide programs and services which address the specific needs of the individual. For example, Aboriginal youths are disproportionately overrepresented in the population of incarcerated young offenders. Programs which allow Aboriginal children to remain in their communities while still facilitating their rehabilitation are more effective than lengthy prison sentences. Instead of imposing harsher sentences, further investment should be made in community support services, including case management and mentoring programs, which reduce the risk of offending.

Harsher punishments in the form of longer incarceration sentences, increases the risk of recidivism, making such punishments ineffective in discouraging offending. Exposure to the criminal justice system in this overwhelming way subjects young people to negative behaviours, rather than teaching them how to become functioning members of the community. While imprisonment may be necessary for some serious offences, particularly where the young person is a repeat offender, this strategy of harsh, lengthy sentences will not reform offenders on its own and is inappropriate for some crimes, particularly summary offences. While the criminal justice system itself is not directly responsible for offending, it often exacerbates the causes of offending rather than addressing these causes candidly, leading to increased recidivism. Additionally, the cost of incarceration (approx. $300 per young person per day) is significantly higher than that of community programs (approx. $23 per young person per day) making harsher punishments a less economical choice.

While addressing community concern around youth offending is important, appropriate punishments for young offenders must be determined based on the evidence of what is going to most effectively lead them away from criminality, not just community expectations. Simply increasing sentences will be unlikely to make the community safer. It is important to address the needs of the specific young person and the causes of offending to truly discourage offending effectively.