Australia’s national research and knowledge centre

Australia’s national research and knowledge centre on crime and justiceTrends& issuesin crime and criminal justiceNo. 409 February 2011What makes juvenile offendersdifferent from adult offenders?Kelly RichardsHistorically, children in criminal justice proceedings were treated much the same as adultsand subject to the same criminal justice processes as adults. Until the early twentieth century,children in Australia were even subjected to the same penalties as adults, including hardlabour and corporal and capital punishment (Carrington & Pereira 2009).Until the mid-nineteenth century, there was no separate category of ’juvenile offender’in Western legal systems and children as young as six years of age were incarceratedin Australian prisons (Cunneen & White 2007). It is widely acknowledged today, however,both in Australia and internationally, that juveniles should be subject to a system of criminaljustice that is separate from the adult system and that recognises their inexperience andimmaturity. As such, juveniles are typically dealt with separately from adults and treated lessharshly than their adult counterparts. The United Nations’ (1985: 2) Standard Minimum Rulesfor the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the ‘Beijing Rules’) stress the importance ofnations establishinga set of laws, rules and provisions specifcally applicable to juvenile offenders andinstitutions and bodies entrusted with the functions of the administration of juvenilejustice and designed to meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders, while protectingtheir basic rights.In each Australian jurisdiction, except Queensland, a juvenile is defned as a person agedbetween 10 and 17 years of age, inclusive. In Queensland, a juvenile is defned as a personaged between 10 and 16 years, inclusive. In all jurisdictions, the minimum age of criminalresponsibility is 10 years. That is, children under 10 years of age cannot be held legallyresponsible for their actions.How juvenile offending differs from adult offendingIt is widely accepted that crime is committed disproportionately by young people. Personsaged 15 to 19 years are more likely to be processed by police for the commission of a crimethan are members of any other population group.Foreword | Responding to juvenileoffending is a unique policy and practicechallenge. While a substantial proportionof crime is perpetuated by juveniles, mostjuveniles will ‘grow out’ of offendingand adopt law-abiding lifestyles as theymature. This paper outlines the factors(biological, psychological and social) thatmake juvenile offenders different fromadult offenders and that necessitateunique responses to juvenile crime. It isargued that a range of factors, includingjuveniles’ lack of maturity, propensityto take risks and susceptibility to peerinﬂuence, as well as intellectual disability,mental illness and victimisation, increasejuveniles’ risks of contact with the criminaljustice system. These factors, combinedwith juveniles’ unique capacity to berehabilitated, can require intensive andoften expensive interventions by thejuvenile justice system. Although juvenileoffenders are highly diverse, and thisdiversity should be considered in anyresponse to juvenile crime, a numberof key strategies exist in Australia torespond effectively to juvenile crime.These are described in this paper.Adam TomisonDirector2 | Australian Institute of Criminologynonetheless ‘one of the most generallyaccepted tenets of criminology’ (Fagan& Western 2005: 59). This relationship hasbeen found to hold independently of othervariables (Farrington 1986).Juvenile offending trajectoriesResearch consistently indicates, however,that there are a number of different offendingpatterns over the life course. That is, whilemost juveniles grow out of crime, they do soat different rates. Some individuals are morelikely to desist than others; this appearsto vary by gender, for example (Fagan &Western 2005). The processes motivatingdesistance have not been well exploredand it appears that there may be multiplepathways in and out of crime (Fagan &Western 2005; Haigh 2009).Perhaps most importantly, a smallproportion of juveniles continue offendingwell into adulthood. A small ‘core’ ofjuveniles have repeated contact with thecriminal justice system and are responsiblefor a disproportionate amount of crime(Skardhamar 2009).The study of Livingstone et al. (2008) of acohort of juveniles born in Queensland in1983 or 1984 and with one or more fnalisedjuvenile court appearances identifed threeprimary juvenile offending trajectories:• early peaking–moderate offenders showedan early onset of offending, with a peakaround the age of 14 years, followed by adecline. This group comprised 21 percentof the cohort and was responsible for23 percent of offences committed bythe cohort;• late onset–moderate offenders, whodisplayed little or no offending behaviourin their early teen years, but who had agradual increase until the age of 16 years,comprised 68 percent of the cohort, butwas responsible for only 44 percent of thecohort’s offending; and• chronic offenders, who demonstratedan early onset of offending with a sharpincrease throughout the timeframe understudy, comprised just 11 percent ofthe cohort, but were responsible for33 percent of the cohort’s offending(Livingstone et al. 2008).of all offences during the 2008–09 fnancialyear (Queensland Police Service 2009);• juveniles comprised 16 percent of allpersons arrested in the Australian CapitalTerritory during the 2008–09 period (AFP2009);• eighteen percent of all accused personsin South Australia during 2007–08 werejuveniles (South Australia Police 2008);• juveniles were apprehended in relation to13 percent of offence counts in WesternAustralia during 2006 (Fernandez et al.2009); and• in the Northern Territory during 2008–09,eight percent of persons apprehended bythe police were juveniles (NTPF&ES 2009).It should be acknowledged in relation to theabove that the proportion of offenderscomprised by juveniles varies accordingto offence type. This is discussed in moredetail below.Growing out of crime:The age–crime curveMost people ‘grow out’ of offending; graphicrepresentations of the age-crime curve,such as that at Figure 1, show that rates ofoffending usually peak in late adolescenceand decline in early adulthood. Althoughthe concept of the age-crime curve hasbeen the subject of much debate, critiqueand research since its emergence, therelationship between age and crime isIn 2007–08, the offending rate for personsaged 15 to 19 years was four times therate for offenders aged more than 19 years(6,387 and 1,818 per 100,000 respectively;AIC 2010). Offender rates have beenconsistently highest among persons aged15 to 19 years and lowest among thoseaged 25 years and over.The proportion of crimeperpetrated by juvenilesThis does not mean, however, that juvenilesare responsible for the majority of recordedcrime. On the contrary, police data indicatethat juveniles (10 to 17 year olds) comprisea minority of all offenders who come intocontact with the police. This is primarilybecause offending ‘peaks’ in lateadolescence, when young people are aged18 to 19 years and are no longer legallydefned as juveniles.The proportion of all alleged offending thatis attributed to juveniles varies acrossjurisdictions and is impacted by the countingmeasures that police in each state andterritory use. The most recent data availablefor each jurisdiction indicate that:• juveniles comprised 21 percent of alloffenders processed by Victoria Policeduring the 2008–09 fnancial year (VictoriaPolice 2009);• Queensland police apprehended juveniles(10 to 17 year olds) in relation to 18 percent Figure 1 Example of an age-crime curve Source: Farrington 1986Australian Institute of Criminology | 3• be less experienced at committingoffences;• commit offences in groups;• commit offences in public areas suchas on public transport or in shoppingcentres; and• commit offences close to where they live.In addition, by comparison with adults,juveniles tend to commit offences that are:• attention-seeking, public and gregarious;and• episodic, unplanned and opportunistic(Cunneen & White 2007).Some offences committed disproportionatelyby juveniles, such as motor vehicle theft,have high reporting rates due to insurancerequirements (Cunneen & White 2007). Thismay result in young people coming to policeattention more frequently. In addition, somebehaviours (such as underage drinking) areillegal solely because of the minority statusof the perpetrator. Research hasdemonstrated that some offence typescommitted disproportionately by juveniles(such as motor vehicle thefts and assaults)are the types of offences most likely to berepeated (Cottle, Lee & Heilbrun 2001).It is also important to note that broadlegislative or policy changes candisproportionately impact upon juvenilesand increase their contact with the police.Farrell’s (2009) analysis of police ‘move on’powers clearly demonstrates, for example,that the introduction of these powers hasdisproportionately affected particular groupsof citizens, including juveniles.Why juvenile offendingdiffers from adult offendingIt is clear that the characteristics of juvenileoffending are different from those of adultoffending in a variety of ways. This sectionsummarises research literature on why thisis the case.Risk-taking and peer inﬂuenceResearch on adolescent brain developmentdemonstrates that the second decade of lifeis a period of rapid change, particularlyin the areas of the brain associated withThe proportion of juvenilewho come into contact withthe criminal justice systemDespite the strong relationship betweenage and offending behaviour, the majorityof young people never come into formalcontact with the criminal justice system.The longitudinal study by Allard et al. (2010)found that of all persons born in Queenslandin 1990, 14 percent had one or more formalcontacts (caution, youth justice conferenceor court appearance) with the criminal justicesystem by the age of 17 years, although thisvaried substantially by Indigenous statusand sex. Indigenous juveniles were 4.5 timesmore likely to have contact with the criminaljustice system than non-Indigenous juveniles.Sixty-three percent of Indigenous males and28 percent of Indigenous females had had acontact with the criminal justice system as ajuvenile, compared with 13 percent ofnon-Indigenous males and seven percent ofnon-Indigenous females (Allard et al. 2010).The types of offences thatare perpetrated by juvenilesCertain types of offences (such as graffti,vandalism, shoplifting and fare evasion) arecommitted disproportionately by youngpeople. Conversely, very serious offences(such as homicide and sexual offences) arerarely perpetrated by juveniles. In addition,offences such as white collar crimes arecommitted infrequently by juveniles, as theyare incompatible with juveniles’developmental characteristics and lifecircumstances.On the whole, juveniles are more frequentlyapprehended by police in relation tooffences against property than offencesagainst the person. The proportion ofjuveniles who come into contact with thepolice for property crimes varies acrossjurisdictions, from almost one-third in NewSouth Wales to almost two-thirds in Victoria(Richards 2009). Differences amongjurisdictions can result from a variety offactors, including legislative defnitions ofoffences, counting measures used to recordoffences and recording practices, as wellas genuine differences in rates of offending.Although not available for all jurisdictions,the most recent data indicate that:• in Victoria during 2008–09, 66 percent ofjuvenile alleged offenders, compared with46 percent of adult alleged offenders,recorded by police were apprehendedin relation to property crime (VictoriaPolice 2009);• in Queensland during the same period,property offences comprised 58 percentof offences for which juveniles wereapprehended by police, compared with22 percent of offences for which adultswere apprehended (Queensland PoliceService 2009); and• in South Australia during 2007–08,property crimes comprised 46 percentof all crimes for which juveniles wereapprehended, compared with 24 percentfor adults (South Australia Police 2008).Offences for which juveniles were mostfrequently adjudicated by the Children’sCourts in Australia during 2007–08 wereacts intended to cause injury (16%), theft(14%), unlawful entry with intent (12%), roadtraffc offences (11%) and deception (fareevasion and related offences—also 11%;ABS 2009). Combined, these offencesaccounted for nearly two-thirds ofdefendants appearing before the Children’sCourts during this period (ABS 2009).By comparison, offences for which adultswere most frequently adjudicated in theHigher Courts during 2007–08 were actsintended to cause injury (23%), illicit drugsoffences (18%), sexual assault (15%),robbery/extortion (11%) and unlawful entrywith intent (9%; ABS 2009). Offencesfor which adults were most frequentlyadjudicated in the Magistrates Courtsduring 2007–08 were road traffc offences(45%), public order offences (11%),dangerous or negligent acts endangeringpersons (9%), acts intended to cause injury(8%), offences against justice procedures(6%), theft (5%) and illicit drugs offences(also 5%; ABS 2009).The nature of juvenile offendingJuveniles are more likely than adults tocome to the attention of police, for a varietyof reasons. As Cunneen and White (2007)explain, by comparison with adults, juvenilestend to:4 | Australian Institute of CriminologyYoung people as crime victimsYoung people are not only disproportionatelythe perpetrators of crime; they are alsodisproportionately the victims of crime (seeFinkelhor et al. 2009; Richards 2009). Youngpeople aged 15 to 24 years are at a higherrisk of assault than any other age group inAustralia and males aged 15 to 19 years aremore than twice as likely to become a victimof robbery as males aged 25 or older, andall females (AIC 2010). Statistics also showthat juveniles comprise substantialproportions of victims of sexual offences.In 2007, the highest rate of recorded sexualassault in Australia was for 10 to 14 yearold females, at 544 per 100,000 population(AIC 2008). For males, rates were alsohighest among juveniles, with 95 per100,000 population 10 to 14 year oldsreporting a sexual assault (AIC 2008).In addition, it is important to recognise thatjuveniles are frequently the victims of offencescommitted by other juveniles. Between1989–90 and 2007–08, almost one-thirdof homicide victims aged 15 to 17 years,for example, were killed by another juvenile(Richards, Dearden & Tomison forthcoming).As Daly’s (2008) research demonstrates, theboundary between juvenile offenders andjuvenile victims can easily become blurred.Cohorts of juvenile victims and juvenileoffenders are unlikely to be entirely discreteand research consistently shows that thesephenomena are interlinked.The high rate of victimisation of juvenilesis critical to consider, as it is widelyacknowledged that victimisation isa pathway into offending behaviour forsome young people.The challenge ofresponding to juvenile crimePreventing juveniles from having repeatedcontacts with the criminal justice systemand intervening to support juveniles desistfrom crime are therefore critical policyissues. Assisting juveniles to grow outof crime—that is, to minimise juvenilerecidivism and to help juveniles become‘desisters’ (Murray 2009)—are key policyareas for building safer communities.conducive to offending—including mentalhealth problems, alcohol and other druguse and peer pressure—than adults, dueto their immaturity and heavy reliance onpeer networks. Alcohol and drugs have alsobeen found to act in a more potent way onjuveniles than adults (LeBeau & Mozayanicited in Prichard & Payne 2005) andsubstance use is a strong predictor ofrecidivism (Cottle, Lee & Heilbrun 2001). AsHaigh (2009) explains, adolescence is a timeof complex physiological, psychological andsocial change. Progression through pubertyhas been shown to be associated withstatistically signifcant changes in behaviourin both males and females and may belinked to an increase in aggression anddelinquency (Najman et al. 2009).Intellectual disabilityand mental illnessIntellectual disabilities are more commonamong juveniles under the supervision of thecriminal justice system than among adultsunder the supervision of the criminal justicesystem or among the general Australianpopulation. Three percent of the Australianpublic has an intellectual disability and onepercent of adults incarcerated in New SouthWales prisons was found to have an IQbelow 70 in a recent study (Frize, Kenny &Lennings 2008). By comparison, 17 percentof juveniles in detention in Australia have anIQ below 70 (Frize, Kenny & Lennings 2008;see also HREOC 2005). Frize, Kenny andLennings’ (2008) study of 800 youngoffenders on community-based ordersin New South Wales found that the overrepresentation of intellectual disabilities wasparticularly high among Indigenous juvenilesand that juveniles with an intellectualdisability are at a signifcantly higher risk ofrecidivism than other juveniles.Mental illness is also over-representedamong juveniles in detention compared withthose in the community. The Young PeopleIn Custody Health Survey, conductedin New South Wales in 2005, found that88 percent of young people in custodyreported symptoms consistent with a mild,moderate or severe psychiatric disorder(HREOC 2005).response inhibition, the calibration of risksand rewards and the regulation of emotions(Steinberg 2005). Two key fndings haveemerged from this body of research thathighlight differences between juvenile andadult offenders. First, these changes oftenoccur before juveniles develop competencein decision making:Changes in arousal and motivationbrought on by pubertal maturationprecede the development of regulatorycompetence in a manner that createsa disjunction between the adolescent’saffective experience and his or her abilityto regulate arousal and motivation(Steinberg 2005: 69–70).This disjuncture, it has been argued, is akinto ‘starting an engine without yet having askilled driver behind the wheel’ (Steinberg2005: 70; see also Romer & Hennessy2007).Second, in contrast with the widely heldbelief that adolescents feel ‘invincible’,recent research indicates that young peopledo understand, and indeed sometimesoverestimate, risks to themselves (Reyna &Rivers 2008). Adolescents engage in riskierbehaviour than adults (such as drug andalcohol use, unsafe sexual activity, dangerousdriving and/or delinquent behaviour) despiteunderstanding the risks involved (Boyer2006; Steinberg 2005). It appears thatadolescents not only consider riskscognitively (by weighing up the potentialrisks and rewards of a particular act), butsocially and/or emotionally (Steinberg 2005).The inﬂuence of peers can, for example,heavily impact on young people’s risk-takingbehaviour (Gatti, Tremblay & Vitaro 2009;Hay, Payne & Chadwick 2004; Steinberg2005). Importantly, these factors alsointeract with one another:Not only does sensation seekingencourage attraction to excitingexperiences, it also leads adolescentsto seek friends with similar interests.These peers further encourage risktaking behavior (Romer & Hennessy2007: 98–99).It has been recognised that young peopleare more at risk of a range of problemsAustralian Institute of Criminology | 5justice model conceptualises offending asthe result of a juvenile’s free will, or choice.Offenders are seen as responsible for theiractions and deserving of punishment.In reality, the welfare and justice modelsare ideal types and juvenile justice systemsrarely reﬂect purely welfare or justicemodels. Instead, individual elements ofthe juvenile justice system in Australia reﬂecteach of these paradigms. Even specifcpolicies such as restorative justiceconferencing (see Richards forthcomingfor an overview) can be underpinned byboth welfare and justice principles. As notedabove, juvenile justice systems are, on thewhole, more welfare-oriented than adultcriminal justice systems.Reducing stigmatisationA range of measures aim to protect theprivacy and limit the stigmatisation ofjuveniles. Prohibitions on the naming ofjuvenile offenders in criminal proceedings,for example, exist in all Australianjurisdictions (Chappell & Lincoln 2009).In each jurisdiction, except the NorthernTerritory, juveniles’ identities must notbe made public, although exceptionsare sometimes allowed. In the NorthernTerritory, the reverse is the case—juvenileoffenders can be named, unless anapplication is made to suppress identifyinginformation (Chappell & Lincoln 2009).In some instances, juveniles’ convictionsmay not be recorded. This strategy aimsto avoid stigmatising juveniles and assistjuveniles to ‘grow out’ of crime rather thanbecome entrenched in the criminal justicesystem. In most jurisdictions, for example,juveniles who participate in a restorativejustice conference and complete therequisite actions resulting from theconference (such as apologising to thevictim and/or paying restitution), do nothave a conviction recorded, even thoughthey have admitted guilt. Similarly, in somejurisdictions, a juvenile can be found guiltyof an offence without being convicted. In theAustralian Capital Territory during the threemonth period from January to March 2008,25 percent of juveniles who appeared beforethe ACT Children’s Court pleaded guilty butdid not have a conviction recorded. A furtherAlthough juvenile crime is typically lessserious and less costly in economic termsthan adult offending (Cunneen & White2007), juvenile offenders often require moreintensive and more costly interventions thanadult offenders, for a range of reasons.Juvenile offendershave complex needsJuvenile offenders often have more complexneeds than adult offenders, as describedabove. Although many of these problems(substance abuse, mental illness and/orcognitive disability) also characterise adultcriminal justice populations, they can causegreater problems among young people,who are more susceptible—physically,emotionally and socially—to them. Manyof these problems are compounded byjuveniles’ psychosocial immaturity.Juvenile offenders requirea higher duty of careJuvenile offenders require a higher dutyof care than adult offenders. For example,due to their status as legal minors, the stateprovides in loco parentis supervision ofjuveniles in detention. Incarcerated juvenilesof school age are required to participate inschooling and staff-to-offender ratios aremuch higher in juvenile than adult custodialfacilities, to enable more intensive supervisionand care of juveniles. For these reasons,juvenile justice supervision can be highlyresource-intensive (New EconomicsFoundation 2010).Juveniles may grow out of crimeAs outlined above, many juveniles growout of crime and adopt law-abiding lifestylesas young adults. Many juveniles who havecontact with the criminal justice system aretherefore not ‘lost causes’ who will continueoffending over their lifetime. As juvenilesare neither fully developed nor entrenchedwithin the criminal justice system, juvenilejustice interventions can impact upon themand help to foster juveniles’ desistance fromcrime. Conversely, the potential exists fora great deal of harm to be done to juvenilesif ineffective or unsuitable interventions areapplied by juvenile justice authorities.Juvenile justice interventionsA range of principles therefore underpinjuvenile justice in Australia. These aredesigned to respond to juvenile offendingin an appropriate and effective way.The doctrine of doli incapaxThe rate at which children mature variesconsiderably among individuals. Due to theirvaried developmental trajectories, childrenlearn the difference between right andwrong—and between behaviours that areseriously wrong and those that are merelynaughty or mischievous—at different ages.The legal doctrine doli incapax recognisesthe varying ages at which children mature.In Australia, juveniles aged 10 to 13 yearsinclusive are considered to be doli incapax.Doli incapax is a rebuttable legal presumptionthat a child is ‘incapable of crime’ underlegislation or common law. In court, theprosecution is responsible for rebutting thepresumption of doli incapax and provingthat the accused juvenile was able at therelevant time to adequately distinguishbetween right and wrong. A contestedtrial can only result in conviction if theprosecution successfully rebuts thispresumption.The principle of doli incapax has existedsince at least the fourteenth century (Crofts2003) and is supported by the UnitedNations’ (1989: 12) Convention on theRights of the Child, which requires signatorystates to establish ‘a minimum age belowwhich children shall be presumed not tohave the capacity to infringe the penal law.’There has, nonetheless, been a great deal ofdebate about its continued relevance (Crofts2003; Urbas 2000) and the principle wasabolished in 1998 in the United Kingdom.Welfare and justiceapproaches to juvenile justiceWestern juvenile justice systems are oftencharacterised as alternating betweenwelfare and justice models. The welfaremodel considers the needs of the youngoffender and aims to rehabilitate the juvenile.Offending behaviour is thought to stemprimarily from factors outside the juvenile’scontrol, such as family characteristics. The6 | Australian Institute of Criminologylife-course persistent criminals and theimportance of providing constructiveinterventions that will assist young peopleto grow out of crime and adopt law-abidinglifestyles.Diversion of juvenilesEach of Australia’s jurisdictions has legislationthat emphasises the diversion of juvenilesfrom the criminal justice system (see Table1). Although there are variations among thejurisdictions, juveniles are often afforded thebeneft of warnings, police cautions andyouth justice conferences rather than beingsent directly to court. As Richards (2009)shows, this is the case for about half of alljuveniles formally dealt with by the police,although this proportion varies according toa number of factors, including offence typeand juveniles’ age, gender and Indigenousstatus. Even those juveniles adjudicatedin the children’s court are overwhelminglysentenced to non-custodial penalties,such as fnes, work orders and communitysupervision (ABS 2009). Table 1 Main juvenile justice legislation inAustralia, by jurisdictionNSWYoung Offenders Act (1997)VicChildren, Youth and Families Act (2005)QldYouth Justice Act (1992)WAYoung Offenders Act (1994)SAYoung Offenders Act (1993)NTYouth Justice Act 2005ACTChildren and Young People Act (2008)TasYouth Justice Act (1997) In all jurisdictions’ juvenile justice legislation,detention is considered a last resort forjuveniles. This reﬂects the United Nations’(1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child.Avoiding peer contagionIt is widely recognised that some criminaljustice responses to offending, such asincarceration, are criminogenic; that is, theyfoster further criminality. It is accepted, forexample, that prisons are ‘universities ofcrime’ that enable offenders to learn moreand better offending strategies and skills,and to create and maintain criminal networks.This may be particularly the case forjuveniles, who, due to their immaturity, areLabelling and stigmatisation are widelyconsidered to play a role in the formationof young people’s offending trajectories—whether young people persist with, ordesist from, crime. Avoiding labelling andstigmatisation is therefore a key principleof juvenile justice intervention in Australia.Addressing juveniles’criminogenic needsUnderpinned by the welfare philosophy,many juvenile justice measures in Australiaand other Western countries are designedto address juveniles’ criminogenic needs.Outcomes of juveniles’ contacts with thepolice, youth justice conferencing and/or thechildren’s courts often aim to address needsrelated to juveniles’ drug use, mental healthproblems and/or educational, employmentor family problems. Youth policing programs,for example, often focus on increasingjuvenile offenders’ engagement witheducation, family or leisure pursuits.Specialty courts, such as youth drugand alcohol courts (see Payne 2005 foran overview), are informed by therapeuticjurisprudence and seek to address specifcneeds of juvenile offenders, rather thanpunish juveniles for their crimes.Although many of the measures describedin this paper—including specialty courts,restorative justice conferencing anddiversion—are also available for adultoffenders in Australia, this is the case toa far more limited extent. Many of theseapproaches are differentially applied tojuveniles, whose youth, inexperience andpropensity to desist from crime make thesestrategies especially appropriate for youngpeople. This is also demonstrated by therange of measures that have recentlyemerged specifcally for young adultoffenders, such as Victoria’s dual-tracksystem (under which 18 to 20 year oldoffenders can be detained in a juvenilerather than an adult correctional facility) andrestorative justice measures that specifcallytarget young adult offenders (People &Trimboli 2007). These measures furtherdemonstrate the criminal justice system’sfocus on helping young people desist fromcrime without being ‘contaminated’ by older,18 percent pleaded not guilty and did nothave a conviction recorded (although nojuvenile who pleaded not guilty during thisperiod was acquitted; ACT DJCS 2008).The proportion of juveniles’ convictions thatwere not recorded varied by offence type,from zero percent for homicide and sexualassault offences to 100 percent for publicorder offences. Although these calculationsare based on very small numbers and mustbe interpreted cautiously, they demonstratethe principle of avoiding the stigmatisationof juveniles. It is unknown to what extentthis occurs in jurisdictions other than theAustralian Capital Territory (Richards 2009).It is important to consider in this contextthe extent to which juveniles’ psychosocialimmaturity affects their pleading decisions incourt. One study found that juveniles aged15 years and younger are signifcantly morelikely than older adolescents and adultsto have compromised ability to act ascompetent defendants in court (Grisso et al.2003). One-third of 11 to 13 year olds andone-ffth of 14 to 15 year olds were foundto be ‘as impaired in capacities relevant toadjudicative competence as are seriouslymentally ill adults who would likely beconsidered incompetent to stand trial’(Grisso et al. 2003: 356). This pattern of agedifferences was found to apply even whengender, ethnicity and socioeconomic statuswere controlled for and was evident amongboth juveniles who had had contact withthe criminal justice system and those in thegeneral community. This demonstrates thatimmaturity is a signifcant factor in shapingjuveniles’ competence in court, irrespectiveof other inﬂuences.Related to the above discussion is the theoryof labelling. Labelling theory, which emergedin the 1960s, posits that young people whoare labelled ‘criminal’ by the criminal justicesystem are likely to live up to this label andbecome committed career criminals, ratherthan growing out of crime, as would normallyoccur. The stigmatisation engendered by thecriminal justice system therefore producesa self-fulflling prophecy—young peoplelabelled criminals assume the identity ofa criminal.Australian Institute of Criminology | 7Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) 2008.Australian crime: Facts & fgures 2007. Canberra:AIC. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2007.aspxBoyer T 2006. The development of risk-taking:A multi-perspective review. Developmental Review26: 291–345Carrington K & Pereira M 2009. Offending youth:Sex, crime and justice. Leichhardt: FederationPressChappell D & Lincoln R 2009. ‘Shhh…we can’ttell you’: An update on the naming prohibitionof young offenders. Current Issues in CriminalJustice 20(3): 476–484Cottle C, Lee R & Heilbrun K 2001. The predictionof criminal recidivism in juveniles: A meta-analysis.Criminal Justice and Behaviour 28(3): 367–394Crofts T 2003. Doli incapax: Why children deserveits protection. Murdoch University ElectronicJournal of Law 10(3): np. http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n3/crofts103.htmlCunneen C & White R 2007. Juvenile justice:Youth and crime in Australia, 3rd ed. SouthMelbourne: Oxford University PressDaly K 2008. Girls, peer violence, and restorativejustice. Australian and New Zealand Journal ofCriminology 41(1): 109–137Fagan A & Western J 2005. Escalation anddeceleration of offending behaviours fromadolescence to early adulthood. Australian andNew Zealand Journal of Criminology 38(1): 59–76Farrell J 2009. All the right moves? Police‘move-on’ powers in Victoria. Alternative LawJournal 34(1): 21–26Farrington D 1986. Age and crime, in Tonry M& Morris N (eds), Crime and justice: An annualreview of research. Chicago: University ofChicago Press: 189–250Fernandez J, Walsh M, Maller M & WrapsonW 2009. Police arrests and juvenile cautionsWestern Australia 2006. Perth: University ofWestern Australia Crime Research CentreFinkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R & Hamby S2009. Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in anational sample of children and youth. Pediatrics125(5): 1–13Frize M, Kenny D & Lennings C 2008. Therelationship between intellectual disability,Indigenous status and risk of reoffending injuvenile offenders on community orders. Journalof Intellectual Disability Research 52(6): 510–519Gatti U, Tremblay R & Vitaro F 2009. Iatrogeniceffect of juvenile justice. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry 50(8): 991–998Grisso T et al. 2003. Juveniles’ competence tostand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ andadults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law andHuman Behavior 27(4): 333–363Haigh Y 2009. Desistance from crime: Reﬂectionson the transitional experiences of young peoplewith a history of offending. Journal of YouthStudies 12(3): 307–322contagion. Due to their immaturity, juvenilesare also at increased risk of a range ofpsychosocial problems (such as mentalhealth and alcohol and other drug problems)that can lead to and/or compound offendingbehaviour.Some of the key characteristics of Australia’sjuvenile justice systems (including a focuson welfare-oriented measures, the useof detention as a last resort, namingprohibitions and measures to addressjuveniles’ criminogenic needs) have beendeveloped in recognition of these importantdifferences between adult and juvenileoffenders.It should be noted, however, that whilejuvenile offenders differ from adults in relationto a range of factors, juvenile offenders are aheterogeneous population themselves. Sex,age and Indigenous status, for example, playa part in shaping juveniles’ offendingbehaviour and criminogenic needs andthese characteristics should be consideredwhen responding to juvenile crime.AcknowledgementsThis research was funded by the AustralasianJuvenile Justice Administrators (AJJA).The author would like to acknowledgethe support and assistance provided bythe AJJA.ReferencesAll URLs correct at December 2010Allard T et al. 2010. Police diversion of youngoffenders and Indigenous over-representation.Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no.390. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/381-400/tandi390.aspxAustralian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2009.Criminal courts Australia 2007–08. cat. no.4513.0. Canberra: ABSAustralian Capital Territory Department of Justiceand Community Safety (ACT DJCS) 2008. ACTcriminal justice statistical profle: March 2008profle. Canberra: ACT DJCSAustralian Federal Police (AFP) 2009. ACTpolicing annual report 2008–2009. Canberra: AFPAustralian Institute of Criminology (AIC) 2010.Australian crime: Facts & fgures 2009. Canberra:AIC. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2009.aspxespecially susceptible to being inﬂuencedby their peers. As Gatti, Tremblay and Vitaro(2009: 991) argue, peer inﬂuence playsa fundamental role in orienting juveniles’behaviour and ‘deviant behavior is noexception’. Separate juvenile and adultcriminal justice systems were established,in part, because of the need to preventjuveniles being inﬂuenced by adult offenders(Gatti, Tremblay & Vitaro 2009).Gatti, Tremblay and Vitaro’s (2009)longitudinal study of 1,037 boys born inCanada who attended kindergarten inMontreal, Canada in 1984, found thatintervention by the juvenile justice systemgreatly increased the likelihood of adultcriminality among this cohort. Even whenthe effect of other relevant variables hadbeen controlled for, Gatti, Tremblay andVitaro (2009) found that contact with thejuvenile justice system increased the cohort’sodds of adult judicial intervention by a factorof seven. An increase in the intensity ofinterventions was also found to increasenegative impacts later in life. The morerestrictive and intensive an intervention,the greater its negative impact, with juveniledetention being found to exert the strongestcriminogenic effect. Gatti, Tremblay andVitaro (2009) therefore recommend earlyprevention strategies, the reduction ofjudicial stigma and the limitation ofinterventions that concentrate juvenileoffenders together.ConclusionJuvenile offenders differ from adult offendersin a variety of ways, and as this paper hasdescribed, juveniles’ offending profles differfrom adults’ offending profles. In comparisonwith adults, juveniles tend to be overrepresented as the perpetrators of certaincrimes (eg graffti and fare evasion) andunder-represented as the perpetrators ofothers (eg fraud, road traffc offences andcrimes of serious violence).In addition, by comparison with adults,juveniles are at increased risk of victimisation(by adults and other juveniles), stigmatisationby the criminal justice system and peerwww.aic.gov.auGeneral editor, Trends & issuesin crime and criminal justice series:Dr Adam M Tomison, Director,Australian Institute of CriminologyNote: Trends & issues in crime andcriminal justice papers are peer reviewedFor a complete list and the full text of thepapers in the Trends & issues in crime andcriminal justice series, visit the AICwebsite at: http://www.aic.gov.auDr Kelly Richards is a ResearchAnalyst with the Australian Institute ofCriminologySkardhamar T 2009. Reconsidering the theoryof adolescent-limited and life-course persistentanti-social behaviour. British Journal of Criminology49: 863–878Steinberg L 2005. Cognitive and affectivedevelopment in adolescence. Trends in CognitiveSciences 9(2): 69–74South Australia Police 2008. Annual report2007/2008. Adelaide: South Australia PoliceUnited Nations 1989. Convention on the rightsof the child. Adopted and opened for signature,ratifcation and accession by General Assemblyresolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htmUnited Nations 1985. United Nations standardminimum rules for the administration of juvenilejustice (the Beijing rules). Adopted by GeneralAssembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985.http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r033.htmUrbas G 2000. The age of criminal responsibility.Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no.181. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/181-200/tandi181.aspxVictoria Police 2009. Crime statistics 2008/2009.Melbourne: Victoria PolicePrichard J & Payne J 2005. Alcohol, drugs andcrime: A study of juveniles in detention. Researchand public policy series no.67. Canberra:Australian Institute of Criminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/61-80/rpp67.aspxQueensland Police Service 2009. Annualstatistical review 2008–09. Brisbane: QueenslandPolice ServiceReyna V & Rivers S 2008. Current theories of riskand rational decision making. DevelopmentalReview 28: 1–11Richards K forthcoming. Restorative justice forjuveniles in Australia. Trends & Issues in Crimeand Criminal Justice. Canberra: AustralianInstitute of CriminologyRichards K 2009. Juveniles’ contact with thecriminal justice system in Australia. Monitoringreport no. 07. Canberra: Australian Institute ofCriminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/1-20/07.aspxRichards K, Dearden J & Tomison A forthcoming.Child victims of homicide in Australia. Trends &Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Canberra:Australian Institute of CriminologyRomer D & Hennessy M 2007. A biosocial-affectmodel of adolescent sensation seeking: The roleof affect evaluation and peer-group inﬂuence inadolescent drug use. Prevention Science 8:89–101Hay D, Payne A & Chadwick A 2004. Peerrelations in childhood. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry 45(1): 84–108Human Rights and Equal OpportunityCommission (HREOC) 2005. Indigenous youngpeople with cognitive disabilities and Australianjuvenile justice systems: A report. Sydney:HREOCLivingston M, Stewart A, Allard T & Ogilvie J2008. Understanding juvenile offendingtrajectories. Australian and New Zealand Journalof Criminology 41(3): 345–363Murray C 2009. Typologies of young resistersand desisters. Youth Justice 9(2): 115–129Najman J et al. 2009. The impact of puberty onaggression/delinquency: Adolescence to youngadulthood. Australian and New Zealand Journalof Criminology 42(3): 369–386New Economics Foundation 2010. Punishingcosts: How locking up children is making Britainless safe. London: NEF. http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/fles/Punishing_Costs.pdfNorthern Territory Police, Fire and EmergencyServices (NTPF&ES) 2009. 2009 annual report.Darwin: NTPF&ESPayne J 2005. Specialty courts in Australia:Report to the Criminology Research Council.Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/2005-07-payne/People J & Trimboli L 2007. An evaluation of theNSW community conferencing for young adultspilot program. Sydney: NSW Bureau of CrimeStatistics and Research. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/L16.pdf/$fle/L16.pdfISSN 0817-8542 (Print)1836-2206 (Online)© Australian Institute of Criminology 2011GPO Box 2944Canberra ACT 2601, AustraliaTel: 02 6260 9200Fax: 02 6260 9299Disclaimer: This research paper doesnot necessarily reﬂect the policy positionof the Australian GovernmentProject no. 0176Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.