“Four teenage girls and a 12-year-old boy have been arrested and a number of machetes seized after allegedly leading police on a chase across Melbourne’s eastern suburbs in a stolen car” – Herald Sun on the 8th of August 2024.
This report is a far too common theme, young children committing very serious crimes, and the headline response from the government is to raise the age of criminal responsibility from ten to thirteen in the new Youth Justice Bill currently before parliament. What an inane response.
Unbelievable as it may seem, the new Act also removes any accountability for young offenders and gives them control of their processing.
The Bill imbues the child perpetrator with the power to reject any efforts to manage their behaviour by authorities.
This provides a blatant windfall for Lawyers representing the young, guiding them to exercise their newfound extended rights.
They are old enough to make decisions about their management but too young to understand that they are committing a crime, really?
There is a distinct possibility that these changes, opening the door for lawyer involvement, will not benefit the child but have the opposite effect.
Given these changes, not only will young people be disadvantaged, but the community will have no idea what number of children under thirteen and eventually under fourteen are committing acts that would otherwise be crimes.
Perhaps fortunate for these particular young offenders, the Youth Justice Act will not influence the process that can currently be implemented. Therefore, there is hope that these children will be redirected from a life of crime.
But let us presume, for the sake of debate, that the Youth Justice Act is operational relative to this incident.
In particular, the circumstance of the twelve-year-old.
Under the new Bill, the Police can take the child to a Police station or their home.
They cannot be interviewed or subject the child to any other of the traditional processes designed to reduce crime, such as photographing, fingerprinting, or interviewing.
And who will know, much less have any ability to intervene, if the twelve-year-old is the principal offender leading the girls into crime?
This Bill, however, allows a child to conclude that their behaviour is acceptable.
Steal a car and evade police, having armed themselves for a yet-to-be-determined purpose, and for the twelve-year-old and possibly others, there are no consequences.
They do not have to take responsibility for their actions or intent, and they can reject any attempts by authorities to divert them.
Good police work averted a far more serious crime where obviously the weapons were to be used.
What sort of society are we creating? Not a good or safe one.
The most serious omission of due process is the interview, which, amongst other things, may determine the social dynamic that caused such a young child to end up in a stolen car armed to the teeth.
This information is vital in determining how this child can be diverted from further criminal activity.
Indeed, the current diversion practices are not working well, as evidenced by the monumental increase in young people’s offending. Their crimes of choice are more violent and pose a greater risk to the community and themselves than has ever been the case.
Rather than reducing crime as suggested, the new Youth Justice Bill is whitewashing criminal behaviour and, with it, the power of authorities to intervene and adjust young people’s behaviour.
As the legislation converts the previously criminal behaviour into non-criminal behaviour, it raises critical issues.
- What happens to a recidivist child who kills somebody or is killed in a stolen car – does the liability and responsibility lie with the Government?
- What action will the government take to stop the young from being recruited by organised crime?
- Or, more importantly, given the current risks of terrorism, managing the recruitment of young people by extremists to inflict terror on the community.
- What recompense will victims of what would otherwise be crimes receive?
It is well understood that children often do not comprehend the total consequences of their actions. As we head for a dismantling of processes designed to manage young people committing anti-social acts, for all its faults, the effort should focus on improving the current system rather than throwing it out and installing an untested system that is not based on any empirical foundation.
Our children are too important to be used in a social experiment.