Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

people or to reduce the levels of police and detention centre custody. Some of thelegislative changes such as the repeat offender sentencing regimes are unashamedlypunitive in their intent. Others, such as the introduction of new diversionary schemes,have been perceived as more enlightened. Whole legal systems regulating juvenile justicehave changed in some States like SA, WA and Queensland in the last few years. Yet arecent review and evaluation of the new South Australian system could be applied tomost of Australia.These figures clearly suggest that, in overall terms, the position of Aboriginal youths within thenew juvenile justice system does not seem to be any better than under the old system. They arestill being apprehended at disproportionate rates and once in the system, are still receiving the‘harsher’ options available (Wundersitz 1996 page 205).Why have new regimes failed? The evidence before the Inquiry suggests severalreasons. Many of the more progressive changes have been restricted in form, content andapplicability. They have been designed and implemented as non-Indigenous systems withthe expectation of finding solutions to the problems facing Indigenous people. Tokenismpervades some of the changes, particularly in relation to police cautioning and familyconferencing schemes. Finally, the ‘underlying issues’ which contribute so substantiallyto Indigenous offending levels have still not been addressed.The juvenile justice system provides the linchpin for the criminalisation and removalof a new generation of Indigenous children and young people. The reasons for thisintervention can be linked to a number of specific factors relating to policing and theadministration of justice, as well as the interaction of the many underlying social andeconomic issues which are likely to spark intervention.It needs to be borne in mind, however, that in relation to many Aboriginal youths who becomeenmeshed with the criminal justice system, we are talking about youths whose formativeexperiences have involved profound neglect, routine violence, emotional and physical deprivation(including some instances of virtual starvation) and sexual abuse (Crime Research Centre 1995page 2).This chapter has not dealt with the ‘underlying issues’ per se although they areclearly important in understanding why Indigenous young people come into contact withjuvenile justice agencies in the first instance. The underlying issues of socio-economicdisadvantage and dispossession influence contact with both child welfare and juvenilejustice agencies.Endnotes1Police retain the power under section 18 of the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA). A young personsuspected of intoxication can be detained in a police lock-up if no responsible person can be located(Beresford and Omaji 1996 pages 115-6).