The treatment of children by the criminal justice system has been an area of longstanding debate. The ‘justice’ and ‘welfare’ models are reflective of the contrasting views and philosophies relating to juveniles that have evolved and shifted over time. This paper will outline the characteristics of these two models, with reference to a third ‘restorative justice’ model as well. We will investigate how the ideologies of these models are incorporated into our current criminal justice system through the police, courts, and corrections, in terms of both theory and practice. Lastly, we will explore these issues as they relate specifically to Indigenous young people, with a focus on their over-representation within the juvenile justice system.
The …show more content…
As such, the contemporary juvenile justice system endeavours to balance these competing objectives in its practice. In the evolution of the contemporary criminal justice system, a third model has been developed that seeks to provide an additional approach to dealing with young offenders. The restorative justice model is based on reintegrative and developmental principles, which focuses on the reparation of harms through the involvement of the offender, the victim, and the wider community (YCNZ 2015). The model is highly relevant to any discussion of young people in the criminal justice system, and will provide an additional point of reference and contrast throughout this …show more content…
The discretionary powers of the police makes them principal gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. In relation to juveniles, this discretion is extremely important in determining the extent of contact a young person may have with the criminal justice system (White and Perrone 2015). A discretionary decision by police to apprehend a young person is informed by the notions of responsibility and punishment inherent within the justice model, which advocates a more punitive method of policing. Conversely, if we view the modern interpretation of the welfare model as one that prioritises diversion away from criminal justice system processes, then we can interpret a discretionary decision to overlook a young person’s digression completely, or to issue an informal warning, as one that is made with the young person’s best interests in mind. However, it could also be argued that a true welfare-oriented approach would prioritise the care and rehabilitation of the young person, thus a discretionary decision to involve child services, for example, may be viewed as the appropriate course of action.
This example demonstrates the intrinsic competing values within the welfare system alone, so it comes as no surprise that finding a balance between two or more different models presents considerable difficulties. With reference
The …show more content…
As such, the contemporary juvenile justice system endeavours to balance these competing objectives in its practice. In the evolution of the contemporary criminal justice system, a third model has been developed that seeks to provide an additional approach to dealing with young offenders. The restorative justice model is based on reintegrative and developmental principles, which focuses on the reparation of harms through the involvement of the offender, the victim, and the wider community (YCNZ 2015). The model is highly relevant to any discussion of young people in the criminal justice system, and will provide an additional point of reference and contrast throughout this …show more content…
The discretionary powers of the police makes them principal gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. In relation to juveniles, this discretion is extremely important in determining the extent of contact a young person may have with the criminal justice system (White and Perrone 2015). A discretionary decision by police to apprehend a young person is informed by the notions of responsibility and punishment inherent within the justice model, which advocates a more punitive method of policing. Conversely, if we view the modern interpretation of the welfare model as one that prioritises diversion away from criminal justice system processes, then we can interpret a discretionary decision to overlook a young person’s digression completely, or to issue an informal warning, as one that is made with the young person’s best interests in mind. However, it could also be argued that a true welfare-oriented approach would prioritise the care and rehabilitation of the young person, thus a discretionary decision to involve child services, for example, may be viewed as the appropriate course of action.
This example demonstrates the intrinsic competing values within the welfare system alone, so it comes as no surprise that finding a balance between two or more different models presents considerable difficulties. With reference