NCJ Number
154556
Journal
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology Volume: 28 Issue: 1 Dated: (March 1995) Pages: 55-72
Date Published
1995
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This critical analysis of the thesis of labeling theory that formal processing of juvenile delinquents is inherently criminogenic concludes that the thesis lacks empirical support in Australia and that strategies designed to reduce juvenile recidivism are more appropriately targeted at repeat juvenile offenders rather than those with little or no prior criminal record.
Abstract
Under the influence of labeling theory, Australia's juvenile justice policy has tended to emphasize the importance of diverting juvenile offenders away from court. This emphasis has been reinforced by recent claims that community-based rehabilitative sanctions such as Community Aid Panels (CAPs) and Family Group Conferences (FGCs) are more effective in reducing juvenile recidivism than sending young offenders to court. However, these programs are potentially burdensome, stressful, and humiliating and may involve significant constraints on the offender's freedom. Thus, these programs are also sanctions by another name. Given the absence of credible data indicting that appearance at court increases recidivism, little reasons exists not to have courts supervise these programs. Indeed, if these programs reduce recidivism, they should be targeted to repeat offenders. The vast majority of first offenders will not recidivate even if they are only cautioned, so sending them to court, CAPs, or FGCs is a waste of money. If CAPs and FGCs cannot work with young recidivist offenders, the programs, not the focus on recidivists, should be abandoned. Figures, table, and 33 references (Author abstract modified)