There is a lot of debate about raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14, and Michael Bradley’s article on the topic goes down the common path of confusing intervention with custodial sentences. Indeed locking up children as young as 10 should be avoided, and except in very rare cases, it is. But criminal responsibility means something else; it allows for intervention, and in the case of youth crime, helps to prevent re-offending.
Managing young offenders is an ethical minefield, and the South Australian system seems to make an effort to be humane with the goal of prevention rather than punishment. I worked in crime statistics for 23 years and monitored the implementation of this approach — on the whole it does seem to be working.
In South Australia, intervention initially involves a police caution. The child and their family members have the offence dealt with by a trained police sergeant, who explains to the young offender why what they did was wrong and why it would be a very bad idea for it to happen again.
If this does not work, the Youth Court can hold a family conference. The child, family members and the victim sit around a table, facilitated by a youth justice coordinator, so the victim can explain the consequences of what the offender has done. If the victim and youth justice coordinator are satisfied with the young offender’s response, that is the end of the process. Sometimes the child agrees to an obligation, such as helping to repair any damage.
It’s only when this fails that cases advance to the Youth Court to be heard by a judge. Even then, the penalty is more likely to be a bond, or for older children community service. Only in the rarest cases, usually when there is a very likely threat to the community, is a custodial sentence imposed and almost never on a child as young as 10.
The entire process focuses on diversion and education, with the desired result of preventing any re-offending.
A few years ago in South Australia, a 13-year-old boy stole a car and ran through a red light, killing a mother and her baby. If the age of criminal responsibility was raised to 14, this boy would not have been spoken to and could have re-offended the very next night. Instead, the family conference process worked and that child has not re-offended. In another case where a 12-year-old set fire to several houses, the police caution was enough of a deterrent.
There has to be a mechanism for intervening when a serious crime occurs, even when the offender is so young. There are consequences to doing nothing.
