The Allan government is introducing a very extensive legislation on new youth crime laws, aiming to prevent young offenders from becoming serious criminals.
One of the proposed changes relates to individuals aged 18 or older who recruit children for crimes. They will face up to 10 years in jail, lowering the age from 21.
Furthermore, judges will also gain more authority to impose intensive supervision orders on youths who violate bail conditions, which may include wearing ankle bracelets.
However, the reforms aim at raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12, with future consideration of raising it to 14.
Police data reveals that one in five young offenders commit three or more offences, a 19% increase since 2022. Victoria’s youth crime rate has surged to its highest in a decade, prompting urgent warnings from law enforcement about the rising tide of violent juvenile offences.
Raising the age of criminal responsibility without a robust intervention strategy is misguided. Substantial consequences are essential to correct unlawful behaviour and mitigate dangers. Ignoring this need perpetuates the escalation of juvenile violent crime. Therefore, a thorough review of how young offenders are managed is urgently needed, focusing on appropriate consequences for unlawful behaviour.
The argument against incarcerating young offenders overlooks the necessity of protecting both the community and the child. While incarceration should be a last resort, it is sometimes necessary when no viable alternatives exist. Every young offender must face some form of consequence to deter further criminal activity.
Violence in any form, whether assaults, carjacking, or home invasions, must be met with strict repercussions. If the current detention system is flawed, then it must be reformed.
Simply tinkering with bail laws and the age of criminal responsibility is insufficient. A comprehensive approach is required to achieve meaningful outcomes. Implementing curfews and tracking devices for habitual offenders is a straightforward and necessary step.
Even though many of the proposed changes appear to be moving towards the right direction, the persistence on raising the age of criminal responsibility remains a very serious point of conflict with critics arguing that this approach allows the government to artificially reduce youth crime statistics by excluding the youngest offenders from the data, thereby masking the true extent of the problem.
The tabling of this bill this week provides a golden opportunity to thoroughly examine, and if necessary revise, juvenile delinquency policies in order to strike a balance between protecting the community and the needs of young people.
