Page 521 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
care and protection in earlier life and that the most important issue to be considered when confronted with a young offender is what factors—be they family problems, mental illness, lack of education or drug abuse—assisted in the young person offending and, for the individual’s and community’s sake, what is the best way to assist this young person to recover so that they can responsibly participate in society.
We must, in our sentencing of young people, always acknowledge that there is scope for change and set in place the conditions most conducive to it. This amendment does not seek to prevent young offenders from being sent to youth detention, if that is found to be the most appropriate form of rehabilitation. But it does put forward that youth detention is not always the most appropriate or effective form of rehabilitation, although, if properly resourced, youth detention can be a positive experience for young offenders.
The government may say that it will not support my amendment because rehabilitation is one of the principles that must be considered and that there are a number of rehabilitation programs already available to young offenders. But, at the same time, a report on the ABC web site of 4 February 2006 said that the ACT government might consider holding an inquiry into Canberra’s high rate of juvenile incarceration. The Chief Minister said on that day that he was gravely concerned that the ACT’s young people are twice as likely to be sentenced to detention as is a child in New South Wales. Like the Chief Minister, the Greens are very concerned about this trend. The ACT government should remember that it is our young offender principles that guide sentencing and the delivery of programs, and if we want to improve our young offender recidivism rates we should try to improve our principles.
The Youth Coalition has continually called for the ACT government to support alternative sentencing and diversionary conferencing options; to provide support and referral services to assist young people to address the problems that might underlie their experiences with the law, including mental illness and drug and alcohol dependency; to treat drug use as a health issue, rather than a legal matter; to prevent circumstances in which the justice system is forced to compensate for inadequacies in other areas, especially housing, mental health and drug and alcohol services; and ensure that the justice system, at all stages, is able to protect and meet the different needs of young people, particularly young women and young indigenous people.
Young people with dual diagnosis—that is, mental health and drug and alcohol problems—make up a significant proportion of our young offenders. If we do not deal with the dual diagnosis, these young people are likely to reoffend. In some states, drug courts provide treatment orders as part of the sentence, guiding young people towards more organised, meaningful lives. It may be hard for people here to imagine the chaotic nature of some families and some young people’s lives. Young people need training and support to rebuild their lives and to take some control. All these policies flow from the principle that when dealing with young offenders we must deal with the problems they are experiencing to assist their recovery and responsible participation in society as soon as possible.
I would also like to draw the Assembly’s attention to the increasing research into therapeutic jurisprudential principles, or problem-solving courts, which attempt to reduce harm to the community by addressing individual factors that have led to offending, in an attempt to prevent or reduce the recurrence of offending. It has been remarked that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .