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
15. Campbell Collaboration,
<http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/artman2/uploads/1/CrimeJustice_Soderholm_1.pdf>
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.
[7] Campbell
Collaboration, http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/artman2/uploads/1/CrimeJustice_Soderholm_1.pdf, at 5
[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