Joy Wundersitz

Back to justice for juveniles: The rhetoric and reality of law reform

Motivated by growing doubts about the value of a welfare approach towards the processing of young offenders, law reformers in recent years have advocated a shift towards more traditional “justice” principles. This article examines the rhetoric of the “back to justice” trend in one Australian State, South Australia, where in 1976, a Royal Commission into juvenile justice argued in favour of a system which, at least at the adjudication stage, was based firmly on the notions of adversarial justice and due process. Central to this traditional approach is the trial where accused persons invoke their rights by pleading not guilty and putting the prosecution to the test. Yet, as this article demonstrates, the overwhelming majority of young persons in South Australia forego these rights by admitting the allegations made against them. Thus the rhetoric of adversarial justice and the Due Process Model is incompatible with the reality of the routine admission of guilt.

The Net-Widening Effect of AID Panels and Screening Panels in the South Australian Juvenile Justice System

Motivated by growing doubts about the juvenile courts ability to deal effectively with young offenders, countries such as the United States and Australia have established informal treatment programs ostensibly designed to divert youths from formal court prosecution. Such programs, however, have been criticised on the grounds that, rather than fulfilling a diversionary function, they have widened the net of social control. By focusing on the two-tiered Panel system currently in operation in South Australia, this article presents inferential evidence that net-widening did occur after the introduction firstly, of Aid Panels in 1972 and secondly, of Screening Panels in 1979. However, in both instances, this net-widening was restricted to a relatively short time period, after which the numbers of youths selected for processing by the juvenile justice system stabilised.

Chivalry, Justice or Paternalism?: The Female Offender in the Juvenile Justice System

A substantial literature on the female status offender maintains that juvenile justice is discriminatory. It censures the sexually active girl, while turning a blind eye to the promiscuous boy. Less is known about the laws response to girls whose behaviour is criminal by adult standards. This article compares the treat ment of young males and females charged with criminal offences in South Australia. The relationship observed between the work ings of the justice system and the sex of the offender is found to be a complex one, mediated by a range of legal, social and demo graphic factors.

Aboriginal Visibility in the ‘System’

In Australia, Aborigines, both adult and juvenile, experience a disproportionately higher degree of contact with ‘authorities’ and ‘the system’ than do members of the mainstream community. An examination of youth offending records in South Australia during the period, 1 July, 1979–30 June, 1983, illustrates that Aboriginal youth are not only over-represented in terms of the numbers appearing before the Childrens Court and Childrens Aid Panels, but also they are significantly more likely to have experienced previous contact with the ‘system’ than have non-Aboriginal youth. The data show that they are more likely to have records of previous Aid Panel and Court Appearances, are more likely to appear under an existing order or as an absconder and, finally, are more likely to be under the care of the state at the time of their ‘current’ appearance.

Lawyers in the Children's Court: An Australian Perspective

Using South Australia as a case study, this article examines the role and the impact of the lawyer in the childrens court. It suggests that the failure of English and American researchers to find a consistently significant role for the childrens lawyer may be a function of the narrowness of their focus: on the formal court process rather than on the informal processes of justice that precede the court hearing. It concludes that in South Australia, lawyers are most influential when bargaining a plea on behalf of their clients. It is in this area of discretionary justice that the young defendant may experience both the best and the worst effects of legal representation.