Review of Gatekeeping Role in Young Offenders Act


APPENDIX B

Focus groups with young people

In February and March 1996 the Crime Prevention Division conducted a number of focus groups involving a total of approximately 100 young people. Each group comprised between 8 and 20 individuals ranging in age from 11 to 24 years, although the majority of participants were between 14 and 18 years old. Each focus group took the form of a brainstorm during which perceptions of the crimes commonly committed by young people, the factors influencing crime, fear of crime, media perceptions of young people and the means by which crime can be prevented were discussed. Two members of Division staff attended each group: one to facilitate group discussion and one to take notes.

The Division relied on local youth service providers across NSW to organise the focus groups. In all cases, with the exception of young people in detention, some recompense was made to those involved for participation in the Division's work. The nature and amount of recompense provided was negotiated with the services organising the focus groups and varied between groups.

While every effort was made to obtain a cross section of young people in NSW under the age of 18, it is not claimed that those involved are representative of young people. The outcomes do, however, provide an indication of the range of views on the issues discussed. Juvenile Crime in New South Wales: Overview of results of consultation

A number of general observations and conclusions can be drawn from the total consultation process. Some of these may be summarised as follows:

Police / youth relations

Many felt there was an inadequate police presence in some non-metropolitan areas of NSW.

A major concern of many young people was police harassment. A number of young people reported negative personal experiences that either themselves or their friends had had with police. Several reported having been assaulted by police. Many, however, were reluctant to make a formal complaint as they felt that feedback was rare and more often than not, nothing was done.

Many young people had experienced being stopped, searched or moved on by police without any justification. Some had been picked up and taken home simply for being on the street after dark. It was felt that young people were too often the subject of unwarranted police attention and harassment, particularly young people congregating in public places or provisional license holders. Noisy, disruptive young people or those from a particular racial background were considered to be targeted by police.

Many felt that there was little rapport between young people and police. It was recognised that negative police attitudes and lack of respect for police by young people contributed to this lack of rapport. For some young people difficulties with police were compounded by what was perceived as the racist attitudes of many police officers. Many of the young people spoken to said that finding a police officer who treated them with respect and understanding made a considerable difference to their attitudes to police.

There were reports of police not taking the investigation of assault seriously when a young person was the victim. This situation was exacerbated in some smaller rural communities by the fact that young people who had been in trouble with the police were often very well known and sometimes did not receive much help from police when they reported being a victim of crime.

Criminal justice system prevention measures

There were mixed views as to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a deterrent to the commission of crime. Some of those consulted stressed the importance of offenders taking responsibility for their offending and being made accountable for their crimes. Others added that it was important that a realistic punishment be imposed.

Policing

The importance of informal diversion by the police was emphasised by many of those consulted. Many young people mentioned the difference that a supportive or understanding police officer could make to offending behaviour and stressed the importance of police learning to work more closely with young people and showing some understanding of the issues facing young people rather than simply imposing authority. Some participants felt that if they got to know the local police or were warned by them rather than being prosecuted after committing a minor offence, they were more likely to think they owed it to the police not to re-offend. Some young people thought that in this regard, police-youth liaison officers were a good initiative that should be extended

Pre-court diversion

Many of the representatives of local government and non-Government organisations the Division spoke to emphasised the importance of diverting young people from the formal juvenile justice system through the use of mediation and family group conferencing (and its variants). This was felt to be an effective means of ensuring that young people were held accountable for their criminal behaviour but did not become further entrenched in the system. There was some discussion as to whether facing the victims of one's crime was likely to have any impact on recidivism. Some young people in detention seemed unsure of the validity of such an approach.

Sentencing and the court process

Some of the young people the Division spoke to were of the view that the court process had little deterrent effect on young people as the most common outcome was a fine, which it was felt, would generally be paid by the young person's parents. Many of those the Division spoke to felt there was a need for more "creative" sentencing options.

Some participants in the local government seminars questioned the use of specialist courts for young people and what they perceived as the "soft" approach to the sentencing of young offenders.

The support and empowerment of young people attending court was an important issue to many who attended the non-Government seminar.

Some of the local government representatives felt that young people would be deterred from offending if current laws were amended to allow the publication of the names of persons under the age of 18 years convicted of a criminal offence. The young people the Division consulted were of mixed view as to whether this was likely to contribute to the prevention of crime. It was pointed out that young offenders frequently liked to see their exploits publicised in the media and that this was a way of gaining kudos with peers. The point was also made that particularly in non-metropolitan areas of NSW, publication of the name of a young offender might make it difficult for the young person to gain employment and might thereby further entrench him or her in a lifestyle involving crime.