Victoria’s newly minted Opposition leader has wasted no time wading into the youth debate. His enthusiasm is palpable and very welcome, and clearly, he is a conviction politician who, in a leadership role, augers well for Victoria’s future.
His vision for improving the management of youthful offenders has a lot going for it, but he has missed a couple of keys that have got us to where we are today and must be addressed first.
The reality of the current situation in juvenile management is that we have seen the failure of overly punitive approaches of years past as we have seen the obverse where the perpetrators avoid accountability; both options are failures, so we need to look at why.
A significant factor is the inability of the ‘judiciary’ and ‘the system’ to recognise that they are dealing with children who have a totally different ethos from the youth justice system leaders and policymakers.
A key factor in the make-up of the youth psyche is the ‘here and now’ syndrome, where they live in the moment and do not overthink further than what they are engaged in. That only comes with maturity.
What this does is wind the clock, to time differently to adults. What may be a relatively short time for an adult can be an eternity for a child. To see how this works, offer a child a meal at McDonald’s in about 15 minutes. You can then observe their reaction as their time ticks by, as opposed to yours.
This time phenomenon must be used in the Judicial management of Juvenile perpetrators.
The other critical issue is accountability. Young people must be taught that any action that is not acceptable must have consequences if they breach community norms. Whether criminal or otherwise, if their behaviour is not corrected, then escalation is inevitable.
Most responsible parents will correct children’s behaviour from a very young age. Whether it is the parent’s fear of averting the child from danger or simply convenience, the parental approach must always include a consequence. Parents quickly learn that without a consequence, whatever that may be, the child’s behaviour will not alter.
The alternative ‘rational’ approach of some parents is where they think their young child will respond and understand a lecture on behaviour. Lecturing 3-4-year-olds in the centre of a Supermarket aisle is a classic that shows the parent’s ignorance and explains the child’s misbehaviour. Expecting a young child to rationalise like an adult is a major mistake.
The CAA agrees with the concept of diversion for young people but insists that there must be a backup plan to ensure the ‘consequences’ are applied to gain compliance. It is up to the child whether they are prepared to comply.
In Mr Battin’s approach, we are concerned about an eagerness to look overseas to seek a remedy. That will only provide an excuse for all and sundry within the Government to exploit the junkets rather than deal with the issue by applying lateral thinking.
The overseas experiences can be researched online without incurring the cost of being spent on a ‘solution finding tour’. Moreover, the experiences overseas were homegrown, which should also be our solution. The tendency to look elsewhere ignores the issue of cultural variations and, therefore, is unlikely capable of just being lifted and applied here and expecting a positive outcome.
The secret to success is to provide a plan that is simple, straightforward, and easy to implement in a cost-effective way that can be easily measured and easily modified to make inevitable necessary improvements measured against the pre-determined matrixes.
Using current government resources to avoid additional costs, the CAA proposal must be seriously considered.
I am cautious of Battin’s elevation to the leadership of the LNP. Battin supports the raising of criminal responsibility just as labor does and he advocates for kids to get their drivers licence at a younger age. We have enough hoons on the road now, we dont need more. I sought his help with a police issue in the recent past and for 8 months his office blamed the police and minister for a delay of 8 months – seems police corruption doesnt rate too high on his priority list When i asked for any evidence that he even wrote to the CC or minister, I was ignored. I then served him with an FOI application requesting proof that he acted for me, and again i was ignored and blocked. In my opinion, providing even his initial correspondence to the CC was not an unreasonable request yet like labor, accountability seems foreign to him. Despite the AAT and IRC both claiming that they never ruled on my dismissal, the police are still claiming that the AAT and IRC both supported their decision to end my career which is false and which was denied by these tribunals yet police still tell politicians that their decision to ruin my reputation and career was independently reviewed and our all talk, no action politicians buy whatever the police tell them A leader leads, they just dont talk yet all i see from Battin is talk. Under Battin, I dont see any chance of a change in policing or attitudes.
Whereas Restorative Justice may be acceptably effective in a few cases, the philosophy has largely failed because it has been excessively applied without relevant and meaningful consequences. The message then perceived by ‘youth’ is that their behaviour is regarded as insignificant and inconsequential, and they are free to push their delinquency further. Their developing egos feed on that freedom. ‘Youth’ must learn that, like adults, they are not untouchable, that freedom is not unlimited. In the present ‘system’, unfortunately, that message is not delivered.
It is the combination of punitive and restorative measures applied to each case that will deliver acceptable behaviour – if Government chooses to face the matter. The message then perceived by ‘youth’ is therefore about what not to do and what to do. Push and pull. Punishment and reward. The combination reduces, or possibly eliminates, ‘youth’ [and adult] choices to creatively continue offending. It is unfortunate, but necessary, that ‘the system’ is called on to supplant inadequate parenting. Parenting of youths can be a tough gig. A key part of maturity is the understanding that all behaviour carries consequences for the self and/or others. All levels of Government have opportunity, and moral obligation, to contribute to that understanding. Party-political ideologies should be recognised as favouring one of the extremes, neither of which alone are adequately fit for purpose.
There could be a specified hard-soft range of ‘community responses’ available to the Judiciary for application to offenders. The Bench should be required to significantly explain/justify their choices [available for public perusal] if at either extreme. Each part of the hard-soft range of sentences should contain both an offender-meaningful disincentive component, and controlled experience by the offender demonstrating desirable behaviour contrary to the original offending.
The definition of ‘youth’ is vague. Given that a 16 y.o. is given the right to control a vehicular ‘weapon’, and imminently to vote, offenders should be regarded as adults at about that age and treated as ‘they need to respect social and civic standards’ rather than ‘they know not what they do’.
Both punishment and reward are time sensitive. The delay experienced in receiving either, proportionately dilutes their value – particularly for younger people. Delays in ‘processing’ youth delinquents seriously diminish the outcome effects of their treatment.