Over-represented and misunderstood: Pacific young people and juvenile justice in NSW
| Author | Supriya Singh,Meredith Blake,Marg Liddell |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816666614 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2017, Vol. 50(4) 529–547
Over-represented and
! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
misunderstood: Pacific
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865816666614
young people and juvenile
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
justice in NSW
Marg Liddell
Justice and Legal Studies, School of Global Urban and Social Studies,
RMIT University, Australia
Meredith Blake and Supriya Singh
Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University, Australia
Abstract
In New South Wales, Australia, statistics show that Pacific young people are over-represented
in the juvenile justice system. They enter later than other young offenders, frequently for
violent offending. Drawing on research with Pacific young people on correctional orders,
their families and communities, we outline the reasons for their over-representation using a
risk and protective paradigm. Family connections, religious faith and cultural identity are
reportedly strong for Pacific young people, but they struggle to negotiate differences between
Pacific and Australian cultures. Misunderstanding of these issues and Pacific young people’s
typical offending trajectory results in a lack of interventions to reduce this offending
behaviour. This article makes a contribution to knowledge of a rarely researched group of
young people in the juvenile justice system. It highlights the need for increased awareness of
issues that Pacific young offenders face.
Keywords
Collectivist culture, criminal offending, over-representation, Pacific young people, risk and
protective factors
Date received: 6 October 2015; accepted: 18 July 2016
Introduction
Pacific young people are the second most over-represented group in the New South
Wales (NSW) juvenile justice (JJ) system, after Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
young Australians (Department of Human Services [DHS], 2010). Increasing numbers of
Corresponding author:
Marg Liddell, Justice and Legal Studies, School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, 411 Swanston St,
Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia.
Email: marg.liddell@rmit.edu.au
530
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 50(4)
people from Pacific1 backgrounds live in Australia, but limited information is available
on the characteristics of Pacific young people involved in the JJ system (Ravulo, 2015a).
However, Pacific young people come to the attention of the system at an older age than
other young people (Mission Australia, 2009; Ravulo, 2015b). Age and offending pat-
terns can result in them being tried as adults. Further, offending motivation involves a
‘means to an end – usually to obtain money or material goods’ (Mission Australia, 2009, p. 4),
which is consistent with adult offending rather than spur of the moment actions typical of
youth offending.
Pacific young people from 2006 onwards made up:
. 1.1% of the NSW population
. 7% of juvenile offenders on community-based orders (CBOs)2
. 20% of young people incarcerated either on control orders3 or remand
. the highest proportion of violent offenders (violence against a person) of any ethnic
group incarcerated in the JJ system (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 20064;
DHS, 2010).
In addition:
. nearly half the Pacific young offenders had been previously incarcerated
. 86% of young offenders under youth justice supervision in NSW were male (DHS,
2010) and 14% were female. Australia wide, the numbers are 83% male and 17%
female (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2014).
. more than 75% of their offending involved violence, such as assault, aggravated
robbery or aggravated assault (DHS, 2010; Mission Australia, 2009; Ravulo, 2015b).
These statistics do not reflect recent developments and have been raised in previous
studies (Cain, 1995; Noetic Solutions, 2010).
Other juvenile first generation migrants have been over-represented in the criminal
justice system (Baur, 2006). The targeting of different ethnic groups, such as Lebanese
and African youth and the more aggressive stop-and-search activities by police has been
suggested as a contributing factor to their over-representation (Cunneen & White, 2011;
Cunneen, White, & Richards, 2015; Smith & Reside, 2010; Webster, 2015). What the
findings suggest is the possibility that police may misunderstand the behaviours of young
people from some ethnic groups. As a result, police may not fully appreciate the pros
and cons of involving these young people in criminal justice proceedings.
This article examines the over-representation of Pacific young people involved in the
JJ system, through interviews with them, their families and community members, and
Juvenile Justice Officers (JJOs) in Sydney, NSW. The findings reveal a paradox. The
young people have significant cultural capital, that is strong links to and pride in their
cultural heritage (Blake, Liddell, & Singh, 2015; Ravulo, 2015a). Such protective factors
should reduce their risk of offending (Bartels, 2011; Noble, Pereira, & Saune, 2011). This
was not the case in our sample. We aim to explore and explain this paradox. The first
part of the article provides the legislative context and principles underpinning JJ in
NSW. We then consider the link between juvenile offending, risk and protective factors
and family and cultural issues facing Pacific young people. The research methodology is
Liddell et al.
531
then described. We discuss the over-representation of Pacific young people and explain
why they are misunderstood via an analysis of risk and protective factors. The article
concludes by considering the implications of this for Pacific young people’s continued
over-representation in the justice system.
Legislative context and sentencing principles
The NSW Young Offenders Act 1997 No 54, (parts 3–5) suggests that children over the
age of 10 years be diverted from the criminal justice system through warnings, cautions
and youth justice conferences. Sentencing principles include:
. least restrictive sanctions; criminal proceedings not being initiated against a child if
there are alternative options (Cunneen & White, 2011; Cunneen et al., 2015)
. limiting the young person’s penetration into the Criminal Justice system, by minimis-
ing the degree of state intervention in their lives (Bartol & Bartol, 2005; Cunneen &
White, 2011; Cunneen et al., 2015)
. rehabilitating, not punishing, the young person, by providing resources to eliminate
criminality (Bartol & Bartol, 2005)
. minimising the stigma or negative labelling of court processes or detention, as
labelling is known to result in young people taking on behaviours such as criminal
activities (Cunneen & White, 2011; Cunneen et al., 2015; McAra & McVie, 2015;
Webster, 2015).
Reduction in labelling together with diversion limit the application of intensive penal-
ties to young offenders. These penalties can have unintended consequences, such as the
likelihood of an offender’s further involvement in crime (Children [Criminal
Proceedings] Act 1987 No 55, S.33; Cunneen & White, 2011). The sentencing system
is designed to ensure magistrates justify more severe penalties using detention as a last
resort (Children [Criminal Proceedings] Act 1987 No 55, S.33 [1C] [2]). When severe
penalties are applied, young people are likely to become further entrenched in the system
(Cunneen & White, 2011; McAra & McVie, 2015). If they commit a further offence, the
penalty will most likely escalate.
Given these sentencing principles, why are different ethnic groups, including Pacific
young people, over-represented in the JJ system? Is this related to higher levels of police
intervention? Grossman and Sharples (2010) suggest this, finding Pacific and Sudanese
young people believed they experienced higher levels of police attention. Further, does
the court system treat Pacific young people differently from other young people? While
the NSW legislation attempts to address the over-representation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children via diversion strategies (Young Offenders Act 1997, No 54,
part 2), there is no evidence such strategies are applied to other over-represented groups
such as Pacific young people.
Juvenile offending, risk and protective factors
Research suggests most juvenile offending is part of a maturation process. Most young
people grow out of offending behaviour (Cunneen & White, 2011; McAra & McVie,
532
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 50(4)
2012, 2015; McGee, Hayatbakhsh, Bor, Aird Dean, & Najman, 2015). A small propor-
tion of juvenile offenders go on to commit a large number of offences. They tend to be
young people who started offending earlier (10–14 years of age), and are likely to keep
offending into adulthood (AIHW, 2013, 2014; Cunneen & White, 2011; McAra &
McVie, 2012; Moffitt, 1993). Diversion and early rehabilitation are critical in reducing
numbers of young people transitioning from juvenile to adult crime.
Examination of the relationship between age and offending shows two distinct cate-
gories of offending: a life course trajectory and an adolescence-limited trajectory
(Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010; McAra & McVie, 2012, 2015; McGee et al., 2015;
Moffitt, 1993). The first begins in early childhood and continues through the life course.
The second is temporary, starting around puberty, escalating and then de-escalating in
later adolescence. From McAra and McVie’s (2012) perspective, the former is exacer-
bated by family and adversity, including risk factors in...
To continue reading
Request your trial