Cross-national comparison of youth justice systems

Professor Neal HazelDirector, Centre for Social Research (CSR.Salford)

Helsinki Foundation conference on children deprived of liberty in Central and Eastern EuropeBudapest, 4-5 December 2014

Twitter: @NealHazel

1. Introduction to the original study

2. Comparison of youth justice systems:– Overall system principles

– Age thresholds

– Disposals – including how others lower custody rates

What we’ll consider

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

The YJB Study

• 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

93 Countries•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

• Welfare vs Justice

• Alternative models >

• “young” vs “offender”?

System approaches: Models

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

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

System approaches: Pressures

System approaches: Pressures

Daily Star 1/3/93

• 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

System approaches: Principles

Age of criminal responsibility

England and Wales

10 0

2

12

9

22

79

7

33

11

40

5

10

15

20

25

None 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Age of criminal responsibility

Nu

mb

ers

of

cou

ntr

ies

England and Wales

….can be altered by:

Early intervention

Legislation on sub-criminal behaviour

Doli-incapax

Treating offenders as welfare cases

Age of criminal responsibility

• 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

Age of criminal majority

Custody rates

Unit% of prison population under 18 (2008-2014)

Per 100k under 18 in population (2008)

England & Wales 1.2 -

Australia 0.1 35Austria 1.6 -Belgium 0.7 -China (March 2005) 1.4 -Croatia 1.6 -Denmark 0.2 -Finland 0.3 3.6France 1.2 18.6Germany 1.4 23.1Italy 0.7 11.3Japan Under 20

0.0*0.1

Netherlands 1.5 51.3New Zealand 0.6 -Norway 0.1 -Portugal Under 19 0.5 -Scotland 0.7 33.0South Africa 0.3 69.0Sweden 0.2 4.1Turkey 1.2 -USA 0.4 263.0

* Not including classification schools and training schools

1. Community based alternatives

2. Enshrine last resort in law

3. More welfare based processes

4. Community-based institutions

5. Policies discouraging court use

6. Compulsory use of suspended prison sentences

7. Tight control of remand

Lowering Custody

• 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”

Concluding thoughts