Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

detention (Gale et al 1990, Crime Research Centre 1995, Luke and Cunneen 1995,Criminal Justice Commission 1995). Where data are available, government submissionsto the Inquiry support this picture. 14Tasmanian Indigenous youth comprise 3.3% of the relevant youth population, 13%of young people on community-based supervised orders and 19.5% of young peopledetained (Tasmanian Government submission page D-21).In Queensland in 1994-95 Indigenous young people comprised 31% of all finalisedChildren’s Court appearances, although only 3.6% of the youth population. At the lowerend of the sentencing scale Indigenous youth were less over-represented. For example,they comprised 21% of those reprimanded and 16% of those fined. In contrast, at theharsher end of the sentencing scale, the level of over-representation was greater with 56%of detention orders being made against Indigenous youth (interim submission page 94).Two other recent reports in Queensland confirm these points (Criminal Justice Commission1995, Queensland Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council 1995).The sentencing decision is a complex one taking a wide range of factors intoaccount. A number of points are particularly relevant to the process of sentencingIndigenous young people.• Indigenous young people brought before the courts are more likely to come from ruralbackgrounds and are more likely to appear before non-specialist Children’s Courts.Geographic isolation also raises issues of inadequate legal representation, fewer noncustodialsentencing options and harsher sentencing attitudes by non-specialistmagistrates.• Indigenous young people are more likely to have been previously institutionalised,less likely to have received a diversionary alternative to court and are more likely tohave a greater number of prior convictions than non-Indigenous young people. Eachof these factors increases the likelihood of a custodial order.• The existence of a prior record strongly influences the sentencing decision.Indigenous young people tend to have a longer criminal history and are therefore atgreater risk of incurring custodial penalties. Because intervention occurs at a youngerage with Indigenous children, they accumulate a criminal record much earlier thannon-Indigenous children.• Discrimination at earlier stages of the system results in Indigenous young peoplebeing less likely to receive diversionary options and being more likely to receive themost punitive of discretionary options. These factors compound as the young personmoves through the system. Apparently equitable treatment at the point of sentencingmay simply mask earlier systemic biases.• The current sentencing trend is to treat ‘repeat offenders’ more harshly, either by wayof mandatory sentences or greater reliance on sentencing principles of retribution,general and specific deterrence and community protection. This will have its greatestnegative effect on Indigenous young people. They are precisely the group who, forreasons discussed above, are more likely to have longer criminal histories.