Clinging to failed ideas

An advocacy manager for Unicef NZ has written a piece in this morning's DomPost resisting the suggestion that more 12-13 year-olds be dealt with in the Youth Court. To background it, 12 and 13 year-olds are currently dealt with through family conferences and the Family Court as a last resort.

.....the family group conference and Family Court system provide the best opportunity for rehabilitation...our youth justice system is highly regarded and has a reputation in New Zealand and abroad for achieving good results....our youth justice system is enlightened and reasonable - we just need more of it.

The reader should by this stage be feeling moderately confident that youth offending in New Zealand is comparably low then. But no.

What is worrying is that violent acts are on the increase...

The legislative act that created our current system is 20 years old. I would have thought that if it isn't achieving after this length of time there is good cause to change it. But Unicef typically clings to past ideas. Not unlike the socialists clinging to discredited economic theories.

Here we come back to the thorny old issue of the age of culpability. The problem is that at 14 society says a child becomes a youth and commands a different justice approach. At 12 and 13 he is an innocent wee thing upon whom all our best collective endeavours should be visited to steer him away from "embarking on the path to criminal notoriety."

It is unlikely that a 13 year-old will understand the technicalities, complexities and consequences of criminal charges.

But the day he turns 14 he will? Let's face it, many people of many ages do not understand the technicalities and complexities of charges - but they sure as hell understand the consequences - very often, bugger-all. And they understand the consequences of their crimes in personal terms. They got something they wanted, whether it was material or mental. And it was worth the risk to get.

There is already police flexibility at the charging level and judicial flexibility in the court. Extend it. If the severity and frequency of the offending is serious, a 12 or 13 year-old should not be unduly protected.

(When all is said and done however cosmetic changes will make little difference as long as we persist with the current welfare system which churns out tomorrows criminals ad nauseum.)