Academic literature on the topic 'Juvenile Justice Act in Queensland'

According to the Juvenile Act, which regulates the judicial system related to investigation, prosecution, or trial procedures targeting juvenile delinquency, ‘juvenile’ means a person under the age of 19, that is, a person of the age of 18 and lower. Since the Civil Act refers to a person of the age of 19 and higher as an ‘adult’ and a person under the age of 19 as a ‘minor’, a juvenile under the Juvenile Act and a minor under the Civil Act have the same meaning. Meanwhile, the Criminal Act stipulates that a person under the age of 14, that is, a person of the age of 13 and lower, is called a ‘criminal minor’ and should not be punished. The Juvenile Act categorizes ‘delinquent juveniles’ into criminal juveniles, juvenile delinquents, and juvenile at risk of committing a crime, and stipulates that only criminal juveniles can be subject to punishment or protective measures, while juvenile delinquents and juveniles at risk of committing a crime can only be subject to protective measures. There are 10 types of protective measures under the Juvenile Act, but it is argued that the upper limit of the age for juvenile delinquent between the ages of 10 and 13, to which only protective measures can be imposed, should be lowered to expand the scope of criminal juveniles subject to punishment. Similarly, it is argued that the related regulations should be repealed because protective measures are imposed only on the grounds of the risk of crime even though there is no fact of violating the Penal Code for juveniles between the ages of 10 and 18 who can be subject to protective measures. Legal issues related to juvenile delinquents should be discussed from the perspective of the principle of proportionality of responsibility and punishment, the duty to protect constitutional rights and the principle of prohibition of excessively deficient protection, and the principle of equality and proportionality. And legal issues related to juvenile at risk of committing a crime should be discussed in terms of the principle of clarity and equality.

The article attempts to critically compare juvenile justice reforms in both jurisdictions of Bangladesh and Malaysia. It explores legal reforms in line with the international standards to ensure the effective juvenile justice system as well as child well-being in the respective legal systems. The juvenile justice practice of Bangladesh and Malaysia are a testament that diverse juvenile laws, norms and systems exist. After ratification of UNCRC, significant progress has been achieved in both countries. Malaysia adopted mechanisms for rehabilitation in terms of job-based education and alternatives measures by the Child Act 2001. Child-oriented justice and alternative measures have started with the commencement of Children Act 2013 in Bangladesh. For both countries, there is a need for establishing a child-friendly justice system, which would ensure sustainable juvenile justice.

The cases enforcement of children in conflict with the law has shifted from retribution to restorative. This policy transformation was in line with the ratification of Act 11/2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, which replaced Act 3/1997 on Juvenile Court. This study aims to examine the role of community mentors in Indonesia, both before and after implementing the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Act. This study utilizes a qualitative approach through literature review with primary data originating from legislation, scientific journals, and books then studied systematically and described descriptively. The study results explain that probation and parole officers have a significant role in implementing restorative justice in Indonesia. This role has been proven to reduce the number of child criminals who must end up in prison. This study shows differences in the number of prison sentences for children before and after the enactment of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Act. Probation and parole officers are at the forefront of implementing restorative justice in Indonesia through their duties and functions

This study describes the system of juvenile justice adopted in New Zealand under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The Act sets out objectives and principles which stress a number of innovative features including the integration of a western and an indigenous approach; the empowerment of families and young people; the involvement of victims; and group consensus decision-making. The principal mechanism for achieving these objectives is the Family Group Conference which replaces or supplements the Youth Court as the principal decision-making forum in most of the more serious cases. Police involvement in decision-making is also increased by a greater emphasis on diversion and by their role in reaching agreements in the Family Group Conference. Research data are presented which enable an evaluation of the extent to which the Act is meeting its objectives. The tensions in the system are discussed: particularly the issue of victim involvement versus an offender focus and the conflict between accountability and welfare.

This research utilised a range of deterministic and stochastic analyses to establish whether Queensland's juvenile justice system processes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders differently. The impetus for this research stemmed from the continued high rates of Aboriginal over-representation within Australia's criminal justice system, despite diversionary measures to reduce such over-representation, and a commitment by the Queensland Government to reduce by 50% the number of Aboriginal peoples in custody by the year 2011. There are two competing hypotheses concerning the cause of this over-representation, (i) external factors such as socioeconomic disadvantage, unemployment or substance abuse, or (ii) systemic disparity within the criminal justice system. For this research, disparity is defined as the unacceptable use of discrimination; discrimination can be appropriate if it is used to define or enhance a situation, such as discriminating between offenders who are recidivists and those who are first time offenders. The inappropriate use of discrimination occurs for example, when harsher sentences are issued to offenders based on non-legal factors such as race or gender. Systemic disparity is therefore used here to represent the inappropriate use of discrimination against an offender by the criminal justice system. The second hypothesis, one of systemic disparity, provided the framework for this research, which posed the following primary question: Is there quantifiable evidence to support the existence of disparity acting against young male Aboriginal offenders within Queensland's juvenile justice system? Two separate but complementary studies were designed to address this issue: the pathways study and the trajectory study. The pathways study utilised 20,648 finalised appearances for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders in Queensland's juvenile courts, during 1999 to 2003. Three custodial decision-making stages (police custody, remand, and sentencing) were examined and two questions initially posed: Does the custodial decision made at one stage of the juvenile justice system impact on a subsequent custodial decision-making stage? Does criminal history, Aboriginal status, offence type or an interaction of these factors significantly influence the probability of (i) detention in police custody (ii) court remand (iii) a custodial order at sentencing? It was recognised that other legally relevant factors such as family structure and stability, school attendance and community ties might also influence these custodial decisions; however, for the purposes of this research it was not possible to include these variables in the analyses. Controlling for criminal history, findings from logistic regression analyses indicated that being detained in police custody increased the odds of being remanded into custody, and being remanded into custody increased the odds of a custodial order. Whilst Aboriginal status was not a consistent factor at any of these three custodial stages, there was clear evidence of disparity acting against the young male Aboriginal offender, particularly early in their criminal career. To examine these disparities further, these three custodial stages were modeled as eight processing pathways: four of which resulted in a custodial order and four in a noncustodial order. Using this processing model, a third question was posed: Do young Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders have different custodial pathways? Findings indicated that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders were in general, processed along similar custodial pathways that did not include police custody, remand or a custodial order. However, young male Aboriginal offenders were less likely than equivalent non-Aboriginal offenders to have been processed along this pathway and more likely to be processed along the pathways that included remand. It was found that young offenders with a chronic criminal history were more likely to be processed along these remand pathways, and Aboriginal offenders were more likely to have a chronic criminal history than non-Aboriginal offenders; there was clear evidence of disparity at specific custodial stages of the system. In addition, as young male Aboriginal offenders progressed deeper into the system there was evidence of cumulative disparity, particularly along the remand pathways, meaning that the probability of being in custody increases as the offender progresses from one custodial stage to the next custodial stage. Given the existence of disparity, acting within the juvenile justice system and against the young male Aboriginal offender, it was important to formulate viable solutions to such disparity, particularly in light of the Queensland government's commitment to reduce Aboriginal offenders in custody by 50%. Deterministic analyses and computer simulations were used to test the viability of various reduction scenarios suggested by the data. Despite in some instances, different results from the deterministic analyses and the computer simulations, overall findings indicated that to reduce custodial disparity whether at the remand stage, the custodial order stage, or in custody overall (the summation of police custody, remand and custodial orders) that reducing remand, regardless of whether the young offender had been in police custody or not, was the best overall solution. The trajectory study built on the findings of the pathways study, which had identified criminal history as an important factor in the processing pathways of young male Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Using the semi-parametric group based method, the criminal trajectories of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders in Queensland were modeled. These trajectories were based on the finalised appearances of two cohorts of young offenders aged 10 to 17 years of age: those born in 1983 and 1984 and who had turned 18 years of age in 2001 and 2002 respectively. All of these young male offenders had entered the adult system when they turned 17 years of age, and this data provided their complete juvenile history in Queensland. Prior analyses using this method had not considered Aboriginal status or race as a determining factor in these trajectory models, nor had these models been validated either internally or externally in published works. For this research, internal validity was considered as the correct classification of offenders into trajectory groups, and external validity as the ability to reproduce these results in a second or subsequent sample of juvenile offenders. Two questions were therefore posed in the trajectory study: Do young Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders have different criminal trajectories? Can the predicted model(s) be validated, both internally and externally? Initial findings indicated that the optimal trajectory models selected on prior knowledge and the Bayesian Information Criterion did not validate internally. This finding brought into question the trajectory results of other published works that had not internally validated their models. The models finally selected as optimal indicated that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders did not have a common criminal trajectory and could not be modeled as one population. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young offenders were modeled by a low-frequency group, a late-onset group, and a chronic trajectory group. However, the young male Aboriginal offender was more likely than the non-Aboriginal to have been in the chronic or the late onset group and less likely to have been in the lowfrequency group. External validation utilised an innovative but simple method that utilised all of the data in the modeling process along with a sample of this same data for validation purposes: 10% of the criminal profiles, which were characteristic of the trajectory groups, and a further 5% of randomly selected profiles were chosen for validation. All of the characteristic profiles, but only 50% of the randomly selected profiles were validated, and of the latter, the majority not validated was in the late-onset group. In total, 79.2% of the Aboriginal trajectories and 85.6% of the non-Aboriginal criminal trajectories were correctly externally validated. Overall, there are two important implications from this research for government. First, even though young male Aboriginal offenders are more likely to have a chronic criminal history than non-Aboriginal offenders, this factor does not account for all of the observed disparity acting against the young Aboriginal offender within Queensland's juvenile justice system: there is evidence of disparity within the system that is unaccounted for by either offence type or criminal history. Second, given this chronic criminal history, systemic solutions to systemic disparity whilst viable, will not ultimately resolve this problem: they are only short-term measures at the end of a very long justice system. Longer-term solutions are needed to address external factors such as socio-economic disadvantage, unemployment and substance abuse in Aboriginal communities, before these young people are exposed to the system. Continuing to concentrate on systemic solutions, to such an entrenched problem as Aboriginal overrepresentation and disparity, is a misdirection of system resources and is inconsistent with social justice.

This thesis employs a broad evaluative framework to examine the impact of the Youth Justice Service (YJS) on the post-intervention offending behaviour of young people on community-based court orders. The YJS is a Queensland government policy initiative that aims to monitor compliance with community-based court orders, and identify and address causes of criminal behaviour. The evaluative framework views policy, implementation and impact as distinct but related dimensions of intervention. Reflecting this framework, three primary research questions are addressed: (1) Does the YJS concept represent a goal-directed, theoretically-informed, executable and assessable juvenile crime prevention policy?, (2) Is the YJS concept realised through service delivery?, and (3) What is the effect of the YJS on future offending behaviour? Three studies, employing qualitative and quantitative methods, examined these questions. Study one examined the YJS concept, drawing on some key themes from literature on policy development and implementation, developmental and life-course criminology and developmental crime prevention. This study synthesised key policy and procedure documents around six themes, including (1) rationale, (2) goals, (3) theory, (4) service delivery model, (5) method of operation, and (6) key performance indicators. Findings indicated that the YJS concept represents only marginal adjustments from the traditional Area Office (AO) model of service delivery, and integrates few new preventative mechanisms that would foreseeably lead to change at the operational level. Moreover, it suffers from goal ambiguity, fails to incorporate some key components of best-practice crime prevention that have proven successful when working with at-risk young people, lacks sufficient process-level specificity to ensure treatment fidelity, and places heightened importance on measuring impacts that have political value rather than benefits for the clients. In the second study, an in-depth case study of the Logan Area Youth Justice Service (LAYJS) was conducted to explore how the YJS operated in reality, and as compared with the policy directive. Information was drawn from a variety of sources including interviews with staff and clients, policy and procedure documents, direct observation, case management files and staff-researcher interaction. Evidence suggested that the LAYJS was focused primarily on ensuring compliance with court orders. Several organisational factors, such as staff workloads, the statutory basis for monitoring compliance, and the capacities of staff, have meant that comparatively little attention has been directed at addressing offending behaviour. For the most part, the LAYJS employs an individualised case management process, as distinct from the collaborative, team-based model that is prescribed in the YJS concept. Caseworkers have little faith in their ability to bring about positive behavioural change in their clients, and subsequently transferred the responsibility for intervention outcomes to the client. While acknowledging the importance of families in preventing offending, caseworkers emphasised that a number of organisational tensions have prevented them from engaging families in the case management process. The final study examined the impact of the YJS on post-intervention offending, controlling for developmental risk factors and key features of the intervention process. A random sample (N=190) of clients from three YJS offices and three AOs was drawn from the population of clients who had active community-based court orders between June 1999 and December 2002. Information from Department of Communities' case management files and rearrest data from the Queensland Police Service were entered into a purpose-designed database, and analysed using bivariate and multivariate methods including logistic regression and survival analysis. High proportions of missing data on non-statutory variables suggested poor record management practices, or alternatively that operational staff do not understand the role of developmental risk and/or protective factors and social contexts in preventing offending behaviour. Results indicated that the YJS was no better than the AO at preventing recidivism, as measured at 18-months post-intervention, even after controlling for risk factors that were significantly related to recidivism. The analyses found that some unmeasured variation in service delivery, even within service types, did impact upon recidivism, supporting the hypotheses of the first study and the contention that variation in intervention practice can influence offending behaviour. The likelihood of recidivism was increased if the client was using drugs or was influenced by delinquent peers, and decreased if he stayed in school until years 11 or 12, or where caseworkers addressed familial problems. This provides some sense of programs that may be appropriate for young offenders in the context of a community-based program. It also highlights the critical importance of incorporating families into case management, not only for the purpose of providing information, but also as viable targets of intervention. Survival analyses indicated that the YJS might have had some temporary deterrent effect, although this effect had dissipated by 18-months post-intervention. This result may reflect the increased focus on ensuring compliance with court orders as found in the LAYJS case study. However, given the hypothesis that the lack of process direction will result in variable practices across offices, it cannot be assumed that all YJSs place equal importance on compliance. Overall, findings suggest that the promise that the YJS would provide an innovative model of service delivery and generate improved outcomes for young offenders has not been realised. This research has added further weight to the perspective that examines both the individual and combined impact of theory, policy and implementation for measuring client outcomes. Deficits in any of these components ultimately have a ripple effect, making it difficult to achieve the predetermined goals of the policy at the operational level.

This thesis attempts to explain changes in juvenile court reasoning from ‘personal’ to ‘social’ goals of justice. The introduction of social reasoning into juvenile justice has resulted in legal reform practices which circumscribe the domain of decentralized community youth services, increase the dependency and surveillance of deviant youth, result in harsher measures of punishment, and generally widen the network of social control through the law. The shift from the treatment intervention focus of the Juvenile Delinquents Act to the deterrence and punishment focus of the Young Offenders Act is maintained by incarcerations and a ‘downward’ sliding tariff of dispositions. The new social control administration formally enters the previously informal social control networks of family, community, and peer relations. Social change options through the law are increasingly centralized in the courts (where youth are concerned) at the expense of the law's potential for mediating decentralized collective change. The new form of social reasoning by which law reform occurs is explicated in order to critique its application for the current legislation and to explore possible use of collective change processes through law. I describe ‘social’ reasoning as a form of interpretive syllogism with the goal of social good satisfied through individual justice, in contrast to ‘personal’ reasoning which involves the individual's best interests as a good in itself. Social reasoning, as currently applied in the YOA, utilizes neoclassical rationality and sociological theories that relate actions to a presumed balance of diverse and competing social interests. My own understanding of the impact of Court interpretations of the YOA are based on in-depth interviews with 10 Youth Court judges in the Vancouver area. I analyze the legislative construction and judicial implementation of the YOA as reflecting a political strategy linked to and grounded in the knowledge relations of experts. Strategies for discipline are consonant with the rationalized practices of social science knowledge, located both in science (the medical model) and in law (sociological jurisprudence). The research findings suggest that ‘social’ reasoning, which is narrowly centered on legal problems arising from the behaviour of juveniles, pursues forms of crime control directly related to the needs of capital. The YOA is thus viewed as a new discourse (based on power and knowledge relationships) that aims to widen state-social control. Given the relatively narrow jurisprudential horizons of both the legislators who framed the YOA and the judges who apply it, the potential of law for effecting social change is curtailed. I conclude my analysis by suggesting a culturally reflexive approach in which legal reasoning, by a process of reconstructing the interpretive syllogism of law to include commonsense practical reasoning, could become more conducive to community change.
Arts, Faculty of
Sociology, Department of
Graduate

The Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 has brought about some new elements in the South African Criminal Justice system in cases involving children in conflict with the law. The changes require that children in conflict with the law should be treated differently from adult accused persons. The Act is now regarded as a Criminal Procedure for children in conflict with the law. In other words the emphasis is on ensuring that children are diverted away from the formal Criminal Justice provided that children acknowledge responsibility. One of the elements that is introduced by the Act is the Preliminary Inquiry that is an informal, pre- trial procedure that must be held in respect of every child that is alleged to have committed an offence. The role of the Presiding Judicial Officer is very active during this stage because he is the one that takes charge of the proceedings and the role of the Prosecutor and the Legal Representative is very minimal. The purpose of the Preliminary Inquiry is in the main to determine whether a child in conflict with the law could be diverted if the provisions of section 52 (1) of the Act are complied with. Preliminary Inquiry if properly used will have possible benefits for the South African Criminal Justice system in that cases involving children will be timeously be finalised and the turn around time for criminal cases in general will possibly improve. Same will translate in the confidence of the citizens being improved in the Justice system. The second element that is introduced by the Act is formalised diversion into the Criminal Justice System. Diversion had for a number of years before the coming into operation of the Child Justice Act been used in South Africa but it was informal. The diversion that is envisaged by the Act is restorative in nature in that the Act seeks to involve the child offender, the victim, the community members to collectively identify and address harms, needs and obligations through accepting responsibility, making restitution, taking measures to prevent recurrence of the incident and promoting reconciliation. Restorative Justice is not a new invention in the South African legal system it is a return to traditional patterns of dealing with conflict and crime that had been present in different cultures throughout human history. Restorative Justice has been understood as Ubuntu in the African context. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission demonstrated the benefits of restorative justice in dealing with conflicts that had a potential of setting the country alight. Restorative Justice has evolved in South Africa throughout different historical epochs up to the current legal conjuncture. It has now been endorsed with success in precedent setting cases in the High Courts of the Republic and the Child Justice Act has now fully institutionalised it into the Criminal Justice system. One hopes that it will be extended beyond cases involving children in conflict with the law but to adult accused persons. Various pieces of legislation attempt to endorse the principles of restorative justice but are not as comprehensive as the Child Justice Act. There are 4 instances where a matter may be diverted in terms of the Act: (i) By a Prosecutor in terms of section 41; (ii) Diversion at Preliminary inquiry; (iii) Diversion before the closure of state case at trial; (iv) At any time during trial but before judgement. There are 2 diversion options that are provided by the Act that is level one diversion option in respect of schedule 1 offences and level 2 diversion options in respect of schedule 2 and 3 which are much more serious. The Act further entrenches Family Group Conference as well as Victim Offender Mediation which are restorative justice mechanisms. The legal consequences of diversion are that when the child has successfully complied is equivalent to an acquittal. The last element is the multi sectoral approach to crime fighting in that all role players should work together in dispensing justice to children in conflict with the law. The days of working in silos are now over because everybody has a role to play and there has to be collaboration at all levels. The Act entrenches the public private partnerships particularly in helping to rehabilitate and reintegrate children to society. The Act provides for the establishment of One Stop Child Justice Centres. The purpose is to promote cooperation between government departments, non governmental organisations and civil society to ensure integrated and holistic approach in the implementation of the Act. The Act further provides for the development of the National Policy Framework by the Departments of Justice and Constitutional Development, Social Development, Correctional Services, South African Police Services, Education and Health within 2 months of the commencement of the Act. The purpose is to ensure uniform, coordinated and cooperative approach by all government departments, organs of state and institutions in dealing with matters of child justice and enhance service delivery. This study seeks to examine the innovations brought about by the Child Justice Act into the South African Criminal Justice System. The study further explores the possible benefits that may accrue to the Criminal Justice System because of Preliminary Inquiry, Restorative Justice and the Multi Sectoral Approach to crime.

Act 33 of 1995 is an amendment to Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act (2008). This amendment changed jurisdictional boundaries for juvenile offenders who committed violent crimes with weapons. As a result, youth who committed violent crimes with weapons were automatically transferred to the adult criminal justice system. Using punctuated equilibrium as the theoretical foundation, the purpose of this study was to determine if Act 33, as a punctuating event, resulted in an increase in the number of youth transferred to the adult criminal justice system and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in an urban county in Pennsylvania. Secondary data (N = 143) were acquired from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections on juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in Pennsylvania pre and post Act 33. Chi-square test with 2-way contingency table analysis was used to analyze the data. Results did not indicate a statistically significant association between the numbers of juveniles transferred to the adult criminal justice system and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and the implementation of Pennsylvania of Act 33. The positive social change implications of this study include recommendations to the Pennsylvania legislators to increase state funds in order to implement service integration for juvenile lifers returning to the community.

The youth justice family group conference (FGC) is a statutory decision making process whereby the young person, their family/whanau, state officials and the victim of the offence come together to decide on a response to offending by that young person. The FGC is an integral part of the youth justice system, involving thousands of young people and their families each year. There is a considerable amount of literature available on the youth justice FGC, most notably in regard to the purported restorative justice nature of the process. However, for a legal process which involves so many young people on a daily basis, there is little information available on the due process rights of young people in the FGC. This thesis seeks to remedy this gap in the research knowledge. Firstly, this thesis establishes the theoretical framework for the rights of the young person in the youth justice system. The historical context and theoretical justification for these rights is considered, and the benchmarks for rights coming from international and national human rights standards are identified. A key theoretical issue is the application of rights to the FGC. It is argued that although the FGC differs in format from the adversarial criminal process, it remains a state process involved in resolving a breach of the criminal law, and thus the young person's rights should be safeguarded. Secondly, this thesis evaluates legislation, policy and practice relating to the rights of the young person in the FGC. Three key areas of rights are considered: legal assistance, how the offence is proved, and outcomes of the FGC. Reference is made to practice examples derived from observation of the FGC in two centres in New Zealand. Finally, as the FGC is certain to remain an integral part of the youth justice system, recommendations are made as to how legislation and practice could be improved to better safeguard the rights of young people in this process.

This thesis compares how Indigenous offenders are sentenced in Canada and Australia. In Canada, judges must give particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders. However, in Australia there is no such statutory requirement. Indeed, the High Court of Australia has queried whether such a requirement – at state level – would be consistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The thesis argues that the Queensland legislature could pass such a sentencing law and that it would be consistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

Dissertação de Mestrado em Política Social
A delinquência enquanto fenómeno, não só social mas também político, atualmente suscita preocupação nas comunidades, desencadeando uma reação formal por parte do Estado Português dando origem a uma intervenção, que pela via do Direito se aplica aos menores que cometem atos puníveis pela lei criminal e equiparados a crime cometidos por adultos. Na sequência de uma prática de cerca de 15 anos e quase outro tanto de apelos a mudanças legislativas a esse respeito, através da Lei n.º4/2015 de 15 de janeiro, procedeu-se à primeira alteração à Lei Tutelar Educativa (Lei n.º 166/99, de 14 de setembro), que enquadra a política perante a conduta de jovens com idade entre os 12 e 16 anos de facto qualificado pela lei como crime. Este estudo consiste em avaliar a alteração à Lei Tutelar Educativa, enquanto opção legislativa e tomada de posição em matéria de política criminal juvenil, através dos discursos dos/das magistrados/as do Ministério Público e magistrados/as judiciais, por se constituírem como os principais intervenientes na interpretação e aplicação da lei. Através de uma pesquisa qualitativa analítica, define-se por objetivo compreender a avaliação da lei do ponto de vista dos magistrados, considerando as seguintes dimensões: Dimensão Cognitiva da delinquência juvenil, Dimensão Estratégica, na avaliação das alterações mais significativas na LTE, e Práticas de Intervenção (Guerra, 2006), onde avaliam as diferenças e as continuidades na sequência da alteração legislativa.
The (Revised) Educational Guardianship Act: Critical Analysis from Magistrates point of view Delinquency as a phenomenon, not only social but also political, currently of concern in the community, triggering a formal reaction from the Portuguese State giving rise to an intervention, by way of law applies to minors who commit acts punishable by criminal law and treated as crime committed by adults. Following a practice of about 15 years and almost as much appeals to legislative changes in this respect by Law n. No. 4/2015 of 15 January, proceeded to the first amendment to the Educational Guardianship Act (Law n. No. 166/99 of 14 September), which falls within the policy before the conduct of young people aged between 12 and 16 years in fact qualified by law as a crime. This study is to evaluate the change to the Educational Guardianship Law, as a legislative option and taking position on juvenile criminal policy through the speeches of / the judiciary / the prosecutors and judges / judicial, for they constitute as the main stakeholders in interpreting and applying the law. Through an analytical qualitative research, defined by objective to understand the assessment of the law from the point of view of judges considering the following dimensions: cognitive dimension of juvenile delinquency, Strategic Dimension, the evaluation of the most significant changes in LTE, and Practices intervention (Guerra, 2006), which evaluate the differences and continuities following the legislative amendment.
N/A

The fourth chapter places the focus on the period 1884-1910, analysing the situation in Scotland at the turn of the century; by this time the statutory system had evolved into a net-widening diversionary mechanism under which thousands of children were detained in institutions of a penal character. An important aim of this chapter is to assess the impact the Children Act 1908 and the introduction of the juvenile court, which means looking beyond this timeframe to the 1920s and 1930s. Crucially, this chapter provides a detailed analysis of archival case studies revealing the way children were dealt with by the courts, including the High Court of Justiciary.

State courts must follow valid federal constitutional and statutory law. For transgender children in places such as Tennessee, this should be excellent news. Since 2016, the Sixth Circuit has followed the majority of lower federal courts in interpreting “sex discrimination” in Title IX to prohibit discrimination and harassment in schools on the basis of transgender status. Even more promising, the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision—interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination against transgender employees—signaled strong support of the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation. Following this precedent, Tennessee public schools should be: allowing students to use the bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity; allowing students to self-identify, including by using their preferred name; and protecting students from harassment due to their transgender status. But the on-the-ground experiences of transgender students and their families show that this is not the reality. The experiences of transgender children in Tennessee confirm the complexity of raising federal civil rights claims or defenses in state courts. This chapter focuses on that complexity and demonstrates that the path from Supreme Court precedent to actually affecting a person’s life is not always clear.

Children and adolescents may present to the emergency department (ED) without a guardian for several reasons, such as emergencies occurring during school or lack of guardian availability so that relatives, family friends, or day care or school personnel must accompany children to the ED. Concern about providing evaluation and treatment without formal consent is one of the challenges that emergency physicians face when minor patients present to the ED without parents or guardians. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act mandates that all patients, including minors, presenting to the ED receive a medical screening examination to determine if an emergency medical condition exists. This chapter reviews who can provide consent for minors; cases in which minors can be treated without consent in the ED, including minors involved in the juvenile justice system; and adolescent emancipation.

This chapter discusses efforts that educational and mental health professionals can take to help highly mobile students. These students often are impacted by homelessness, foster care, or the juvenile justice system. Although the needs of each respective student population differ, all highly mobile students experience residential instability, which is associated with an elevated risk for experiencing disruptions in academic and psychosocial functioning. However, consistent with a dual-factor model of mental health, many highly mobile students display considerable resilience and do not succumb to the pernicious effects of residential instability. Thus, under a multitiered system of support framework, this chapter also covers specific ways that school-based practitioners can attenuate risks while bolstering resilience to support well-being. Additionally, extant laws related to educational access and service delivery for highly mobile students are reviewed such as the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Improvements Act and the Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court decision.