Hard line on youngsters is easier option

Raising the youth-justice age lets the system turn troubled lives around.

Every session in Parliament starts the same way. The Speaker is announced, we stand, there’s a prayer, we sit. Then it’s down to business. The first job is for all of the tables and petitions to be read out. Last session, there was one petition in particular that stood out to me. It read ‘‘that the House rejects any proposals that come before it to raise the youth justice age from 16 years to 17 years’’. It was signed by 5278 people.

I shouldn’t have been surprised to see that petition arrive at our doorstep. None of us should. Our headlines have been dominated in recent times by horrible cases of shop owners, liquor store operators, and young people commuting between university and home, being attacked by what is often reported as young people who seem to have no regard for their victims. Add to that the frustration that in some cases, it’s been reported that the police either didn’t attend, or were slow to.

I’m not about to launch into the police on this one – force them to absorb $300 million in cost pressures, and what do we expect?

But is the youth justice system the right place to point the finger?

Our system in New Zealand is pretty much split into two parts. If you commit a crime and you’re 16 years and under, then you will go through our youth justice system. On your 17th birthday, it’s straight into the adult system.

There is a massive exception – commit a crime that’s serious enough (like armed robbery) and a young person can end up in the district court or High Court. In fact, Youth Court judges transfer up to 30 cases a year. And if the crime is murder or manslaughter, that’s where a young person will automatically go.

But that almost implies that our Youth Court is the easy option. It’s not.

I have sat in on Youth Court proceedings. In contrast to other hearings, the offender doesn’t observe the legal process happening around them, they are made to confront their actions.

Their family is part of the process too – and they should be. If a 14-year-old is getting into serious trouble, there’s every chance that there’s trouble at home too.

As for the punishment side – ask me if I think a youth justice facility has a better chance of turning a young person’s life around than a mainstream prison and I will say yes, without hesitation. I have visited both. Both are secure facilities. Both take a young person’s freedom away for a period of time. But one is focused on accountability, and trying to make lasting change. The other will more than likely produce a new gang recruit, if they weren’t already.

I remember once walking through a prison that has since closed. There was a 17-year-old there on remand in a cell which was no more than twice the size of a single bed. He was lying there doing absolutely nothing. I asked if he could read; ‘‘that one can’t read’’ was the answer I got, followed by, ‘‘we break them with the boredom’’. One day that kid was going to be released, and not a thing will have changed.

I am sure that all 5278 people who signed that petition a few weeks ago ultimately want our communities to be safe. To be free from fear of random attacks from young people who, in many cases, have been raised around violence and have parents in the system too.

But if we know that the Youth Court is doing a better job at turning these kids’ lives around, and making lasting change, shouldn’t it be given a chance to work with a few more of them?

A youth justice facility has a better chance than a mainstream prison of turning a young person’s life around.