Monday, 16 June 2014

Alternate sanctions in Sweden





Alternate sanctions for youth offenders in Sweden.

In Ireland, the importance of the development of alternative sanctions to imprisonment has been recognised by many policy documents and reports over the past number of years[1]. Surveys of the Irish people, show that prison should be used only as a last resort and in a survey on the public perceptions of crime in Ireland, 73% believed that non-custodial sanctions would be more appropriate for certain crimes[2] than custodial sentences. The perception that prison should only be used as a last resort is reflected through the amendment introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2006 which increases the criminal age of responsibility from 7 to 12 in Ireland.


 I am going to examine the imposition of non-custodial sentencing for youths, as successfully implemented in Sweden.  I have chosen Sweden as my country of study, not only due to their ‘child friendly’ approach to alternate sanctions but as a country with a relatively low population of 9.517 million[3] I thought it idyllic to compare to Irelands 4.859 million[4]. As both countries have low populations, it will be easier to determine would the sanctions imposed by Swedish authorities would work on a smaller scale in Ireland. Imposing such sanctions is no doubt costly, it would be hard to determine if they would work on a larger scale due to the increase in costs to cover a population that is greater than Sweden. The age of criminal liability of a youth in Sweden is fifteen, however there are limitations in criminal liability of persons up to the age of twenty one. Between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, it is only in very extraordinary and serious cases may a person be imprisoned[5]. Therefore, in cases of youth crime, alternate sanctions are used in prosecutions. These include youth care, youth service and closed youth detention. I will examine and critically discuss these in detail also looking to the recidivism rate in relation to each sanction to help determine the overall effectiveness of each sanction and compare them to community sanctions that are in place in Ireland.


 As well as having several alternate sanctions in place for youth offenders, Sweden also provides social welfare interventions for all ages until twenty one, but also to deal with any offenders under the age of fifteen. This includes fostering, counselling, residential care, drug tests and family interventions. These alternate sanctions are put in place in the best interests of the child, rather than the penal value of the crime itself, although closed youth detention is meant as an alternative to prison and is based on the penal value of the crime in severe cases[6]. This allows for youth offenders to be helped by specially trained contact persons, to ensure that they are receiving help of the highest standard that has been adapted to suit their needs. This approach could be reflected in Ireland, through greater reliance on the Irish Youth Justice Service. It is refreshing to see so many measures put in place for youth offenders by authorities in Sweden, with the view to combat juvenile delinquency, however, as there is no separate court for youth offenders, one might agree that such measures are warranted in an effort to keep young offenders out of prison[7].



Closed youth detention
Generally in Sweden due to the law governing juvenile perpetrators (1964:167), a child under the age of 21 shouldn’t be imprisoned, however, concerning very serious crimes it is possible to imprison someone over the age of 18. Between 15 and 18, it should only be in very rare cases that a person should be imprisoned. If a person under the age of 18 is sentenced to imprisonment in accordance with s.30 of the Penal Code, which states that a child if a child is under 18 that imprisonment may only happen if there is extraordinary reason to do so, often it must be commuted to closed youth detention for a specified period[8]. This new custodial sanction of closed youth detention was introduced on the 1st of January 1999 and is served in special youth homes, keeping the youngest of offenders out of prisons. This closed youth detention is for youth’s who have committed serious crimes, the length of the sentence being determined on the basis of the penal value of the crime. In 2008, 93 persons in Sweden were sentenced to closed juvenile detention, the most common offences being robbery and assault[9]. This new sentencing system lives up to the United Nations Children’s Convention[10] and aims to prevent the severe damage that imprisonment can inflict on a young person.

 At these homes, trained carers take care of the overall responsibility of the youth and take an active part in planning the youth’s re-entry into society[11]. Although it is difficult to determine if there is clear correlation between this sentence and the rate of youth’s that have relapsed into crime, the city of Stockholm has noted that the sanction has worked well for a large number of youth’s that are without social problems and previous criminal records, however it has not succeeded in changing the pattern among youth who had previous convictions and came from socially vulnerable conditions[12].

In Ireland, serious youth offenders (for example, those that have committed the act of manslaughter) are treated the same as their adult counterparts, being exposed to the full brutalities of the adversarial system. There is a similar facility in place in Ireland as in Sweden as is seen through the four detention facilities of Oberstown, St Patrick’s (which is in the process of closing), Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre and Trinity House school. As the institute of St Patrick’s is now closed, it had received nationwide criticism as well as having been stated that the placing of a juvenile there could easily lead to psychological deterioration[13]. The implementing a more extreme welfare approach of such detention facilities in Ireland would prove costly and due to the fact that it doesn’t appear to have changed a pattern of youth’s that have previous criminal convictions, it is questionable if such a drastic measure could be justified here unless changes were made to it, for example, limiting the scope of who the sentence of attending detention facilities applies to. This could be done by only allowing first time offenders of a serious crime avail of detention centre facilities. This would mean that it could indeed carry out the function of reducing recidivism.


Youth Care and Service.
In Sweden, social services plays a key role in the justice system for youth’s through youth care and youth services. This is due to Sweden’s balance of punishment and care which places rehabilitation at the forefront of the juvenile justice system. The criminality of young offenders is seen, generally as a social welfare problem[14] and according to statistics by the National Council for Crime Prevention, in 2006 775 youth offenders were referred to social services[15].

 Youth care is enabled when it has been determined that the youth is in need of care and other measures. This aims to contribute to a positive development of the individual and to help counteract recidivism[16]. This allows for a trained social worker to look at the youth’s overall quality of life and social situation to help determine what measures to take. These can include counselling, residential care, foster care, assigning a contact person as well as family interventions. This is quite a holistic approach which examines the youth’s overall social situation to determine potential reasons why they committed the crime and essentially comes up with possible solutions and interventions to try and stop recidivism. The implementation of such a sanction in Ireland would be undeniably costly but could have priceless effects with regard to recidivism. Ideally, if implemented in Ireland, it would have more favourable effects if used on youth’s who have previous convictions in less serious crimes such as theft rather than once-off opportunistic crimes.

Youth service is essentially community service, with the youth carrying out unpaid work for a period of time relative to the crime they have committed under the auspices of the social services. This was introduced in 2007 and was meant to act as an alternative to paying fines which is often the sanction imposed on youth in Sweden. Imposing such a sentence could have a very positive effect in Ireland. This way youths could ‘repay’ as such, the community as a whole for their crime by working in community spaces such as public parks. Such work would allow the youth to see the positive contribution they can make to the community when they see the enjoyment their work could bring about. Such a sentence in Ireland could prove quite inexpensive but have lasting positive effects on the life of the youth as well as the community as a whole, and one which I feel should be seriously considered by the Irish Government, with a view to implementing it under the already existing 10 community sanctions available to a juvenile in this jurisdiction at present.

It would be important, if Ireland was to implement a more holistic approach to sentencing juvenile’s as is seen through working closely with social services, that the correct balance would be struck between care and punishment. Although there are interventions in place in this jurisdiction, as carried out by the Irish Youth Justice Service, it would be refreshing to see a greater emphasis added to this service and it being utilised more here in Ireland. It is important to be empathetic to the youth’s social situation but it is also important to punish a youth for a crime from both serious (gross assault, for example) to less serious (petty theft) so that the youth is fully aware of repercussions that follow such conduct and that the youth has no doubt that is unacceptable behaviour so that recidivism is combatted.

Administrative Proceedings.
In keeping with the holistic approach towards the juvenile in Sweden, administrative proceedings are adapted to ensure care for the juvenile is a paramount thought at all times. For example, a juvenile is very seldom detained as it is seen as depriving them of their freedom[17] and instead, if there is a fear of them destroying the investigation or committing further crimes they are handed over to a social agency; meaning that the prosecution is in constant contact with the social agency dealing with the delinquent and may take notes from there remarks. In Ireland, safeguards have also been put in place against the detention of children; for example a child under the age of 12 cannot be arrested and detained in a Garda station unless it has committed the crime of murder, rape, aggravated assault or manslaughter[18]. 

In the Young Offenders (Special Provisions) Act (1964:167), it is stated that in investigations concerning juveniles that there should be a decision six weeks from the day the suspicion was communicated to the juvenile. This means that convictions concerning juveniles are acted upon fast so as that the juvenile is not displaced for too long a period of time, which once again echoes the overriding principle in the Swedish juvenile justice system that everything is done in the best interests of the child.

Ireland has indeed put in place procedural aspects which deals with the treatment of child suspects in Garda custody. These also have statutory backing[19] ensuring that they are adhered to. For example, section 6[20] deals specifically with the treatment of child suspects in Garda stations out of which the practice of not allowing children to meet with adult suspects being detained in the station at the same time. This helps to protect the child from the possibility of undue influence and is an added safeguard against the vulnerability of the juvenile offender. It is due to these procedural aspects put in place in this jurisdiction that it is submitted that in this regard, juvenile delinquents are protected adequately by both statutory and non-statutory framework in this country. This is further seen by the establishing of the Children Court under the Children’s Act 2001.


Conclusion
Due to the age of juvenile delinquents, it goes without saying that they are the most vulnerable category in our Justice system. In Ireland, there appears to be a cross over between the welfare and justice system in relation to the youth system approach. In Sweden it can be seen that they are have adapted the welfare approach, adopting the theory of positivism[21]. This takes into account the individual needs of the youth, informal procedures and diagnosis and treatment. It also offers protection to youth’s up to the age of 21. This is the major flaw of the Irish juvenile system. Protection of youth is only offered until the age of 18, thereafter a ‘youth’ is treated the same as an adult offender would be. This is leaving a significant amount of vulnerable youth’s without protection. In 2008, in Sweden, youth’s from the age of 15-20 made up 25% of all crime suspects[22]. This creates a pattern of a high rate of juvenile crime that cannot be said to be unique to Sweden.

Ireland has taken positive steps to ensure that youth offenders are offered greater protection, such as establishing the Children Courts, Increasing the age of criminal responsibility and building the new Oberstown detention facility. However, it is submitted, that for Ireland to offer further protection to youth offenders, that a new category of youth offender be introduced (18-21) as is seen in Sweden. This would not necessarily mean Ireland would have to adopt a truly welfare justice system approach for youths, but adopting a system that would adopt further welfare system attributes such as placing further reliance on the Irish Youth Justice Service and give them further powers in relation to youth’s could only be a positive step for Ireland.

Placing further reliance on the Irish Youth Justice Service in Ireland would allow for a system that would ensure it is meeting the individual needs of the child while helping to combat recidivism by helping the child avoid or leave the social situation that had them committing a crime in the first instance. In Ireland, as prison is seen as a last resort of youth crimes, it is essential that the detention facilities that are in place are excellent. The high level of criticism of St.Patricks detention facility has placed doubt in the detention facility system as a whole in this jurisdiction. If a truly welfare approach to detention facilities, as seen in Sweden, where the greatest emphasis is placed on the individual needs of the child in the detention facility was implemented here, it would create greater confidence in the youth detention facilities here. This could be done by putting in place relatively small steps such as ensuring that every child is able to identify a member of staff with whom they have a positive relationship[23] and the allocation of a Youth Justice Service worker to ensure that the needs of the child are met as far as practicable, both emotionally and physically.

The last step that could be implemented in this jurisdiction is Youth Service. This would allow juvenile delinquents to serve their sentence doing unpaid community service and could be added under the community sanctions already available to youth offenders. This would teach the youth the effects of having a positive contribution to the community are. It would also help to change public perception of youth offenders as well as leaving lasting improvements on communities, allowing youth offenders to repay their crime by making a positive impact on a community.

Overall, although Ireland does offer some protection of youth offenders, it is unquestionable more can be done to protect the vulnerable youth. Small steps can be taken to ensure compete confidence in the youth justice system, or more extreme changes could see Ireland move towards the welfare system as is seen in Sweden. 


Ella Weld
GCD FLAC


 




Sources:
1.    The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention,Youth and crime in the Swedish counties 1995-2005. Report [2007]
2.    The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention <http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/juvenile-delinquency.html>
3.    The Swedish National Council for Crime prevention, Treatment effectiveness in secure corrections of serious (violent or chronic) juvenile offenders,Report [2010]
4.    The Swedish National Council for Crime prevention,School bullying, depression and offending behaviour in later life. Report[2012]
5.    The Swedish National Council for Crime prevention, Crime and problem behaviours among year-nine youth in Sweden , Report [2010]
6.    The Swedish National Council for Crime prevention, The influence of mentoring on reoffending, Report [2008]
7.    Riksdag research service, Young offenders and juvenile justice in Sweden, Erik Axelsson, [2010].
10.  Swedish penal code, 1962
11.  The Annie E casey Foundation, No place for kids; the case for reducing juvenile incarceration, <http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Juvenile%20Justice/Detention%20Reform/NoPlaceForKids/JJ_NoPlaceForKids_Full.pdf> [2011]
12.  Dr. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, Crime prevention and community sanctions in Scandivania, 2008
13.  Carl-Gunnar Janson, Youth justice in Sweden, at 391, 2004
16.  Erik Lindqvist, Planned treatment and outcomes in residential youth care: evidence from Sweden, IFN working paper no. 834, 2010
17.  Irish Penal Reform Trust, Detention of children in Ireland, 2009 http://www.iprt.ie/files/Detention_of_Children_in_Ireland_FINAL.pdf
18.  Griffin, The Juvenile Conundrum: Ireland’s response to youth offending, [2003] COLR 12
19.  The Children’s Act 2001
20.  The Criminal Justice Act 2006
21.  Kelly and NiLaoi, Working with young people in the Juvenile Justice System, 2009



[1] For example, The Prison Study Group 1973, Committee of inquiry into the penal system 1985, Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Crime and Punishment 200
[2] McDade P (1999) Public perception of crime in Ireland. Templemore, Co Tipperary: Garda Research Unit
[3] Data from World Bank, 2012
[4] Data from World Bank, 2012
[5] The Swedish Penal Code, Chapter 30 Sec.5
[6] Riksdag research service, Young offenders and juvenile justice in Sweden, Erik Axelsson, [2010], at v.
[8] Kriminalvarden, The Swedish System of Sanctions, <http://www.kriminalvarden.se/upload/Informationsmaterial/Sanctionssyst.pdf>

[9] Riksdag research service, Young offenders and juvenile justice in Sweden, Erik Axelsson, [2010], at v.

[10] United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1992
[11] Supra 8
[12] Estrada, F. 2006. ‘Trends in violence in Scandinavia according to different indicators’, British Journal of Criminology.
[13] Report to the Government of Ireland on the visit to Ireland carried out by the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture and
 Inhuman or Degrading Treatment from 2 to 13 October 2006, Council of Europe Document CPT/Inf (2007) 40, at para 59
[14] Hanna Ginner Hau, Swedish Young Offenders in Community based Rehabilitative programs, Stockholm University, 2010 at 15
[15] Supra 13
[16] Riksdag research service, Young offenders and juvenile justice in Sweden, Erik Axelsson, [2010], at v
[17] http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/ccpe/opinions/travaux/OP_5_Question_Suede.pdf , at 4
[18] S.129 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006
[19] The Children Act 2001 and The Criminal Justice Act 2006
[20] S.6 Children Act 2001
[21] Cavadino and Dignan, Typology of Youth Justice Systems, (2006:201)
[22] Riksdag research service, Young offenders and juvenile justice in Sweden, Erik Axelsson, [2010] at iii
[23] Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (2008) Inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre, Belfast: CJINI, at p 21

No comments:

Post a Comment