12.07.2015 Views

View - LIME Network

View - LIME Network

View - LIME Network

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 7.4.3 SA, proportion of Indigenous and non-Indigenous juvenilealleged offenders diverted, by type of offence, 2005 a, b70IndigenousNon-Indigenous6050Per cent403020100Offencesagainst thepersonSexualoffencesCriminaltrespassLarcenyOffencesagainstgood orderDrugoffencesDrivingoffencesa Proportions are calculated using data in table 7A.4.22. The number of juvenile diversions (that is, cautionsand transfers to family conference) are divided by the total number of apprehensions and multiplied by 100.b Aboriginal appearance, derived from police apprehension reports, reflects the opinion of the apprehendingofficer.Source: Office of Crime Statistics and Research (2006); table 7A.4.22.• Figure 7.4.3 shows that for each offence category except drug offences, theproportion of Indigenous juvenile alleged offenders in SA diverted from court(via formal cautions or transfers to a family conference) was lower than theproportion of non-Indigenous juvenile alleged offenders diverted by the samemethods of processing.• For sexual offences and driving offences, no Indigenous juvenile allegedoffenders received a formal caution or transfer to a family conference in SA in2005.• In 2004 and 2005, the highest numbers of formal cautions issued to Indigenousjuvenile alleged offenders in SA were for ‘larceny from shops’ and‘disorderly/offensive behaviour’ (tables 7A.4.21 and 7A.4.22). The highestnumbers of transfers to family conference issued to Indigenous juvenile allegedoffenders were for ‘criminal trespass’ in 2004 and ‘larceny from shops’ in 2005(tables 7A.4.21 and 7A.4.22, respectively).43

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!