Hi there; TTBN, RUNNER, & HASBEEN...

All three of you are right. Most young first-offenders (described as 'boys' in the lingo, 18 - 25 years old) have committed many offences and probably haven't been caught. Many have graduated through a series of Boys Homes, and when the prison authorities finally get them, they're hardened little thugs.

Oddly most want to graduate to an adult gaol as a status symbol. Therein lies the problem gentlemen. Once these little buggers fall under the influences of older, more manipulative hardened crims, there's virtually nothing you can do for them. The trick is - try keeping them out of gaol?

A ridiculous statement I agree. However about a third of them, you can probably do something with them. Determine their interest, and steer them toward a (disciplined) facility that can embrace and enrich those interests. As a relieving sergeant in the bush, local indigenous people who'd be locked-up countless times, for the usual three B's; boozing, belligerence and bashing, when the local Beak would sentence them to ninety days imprisonment with hard labour, we'd have em' working in around the Station and it's curtilages etc. And they were as good as gold, and more often then not, wanted to remain there, long after their period of detention expired?

From a purely fiscal point of view, I'm reliably informed it would cost more to keep an inmate in custody, in a gaol, than to house the same individual in a dormitory style facility, coupled with some form of technical or rural training? Even if only one, in ten 'boys', were successfully retrained, and kept out of trouble, wouldn't it be worth it? Believe me, I'm no soft touch, and as obsessive as anyone about criminals adequately paying for their crimes.

Thank you for your contributions all three of you.

One other problem with the current system is the fact that Juvenile crimes are not carried into adulthood.

I agree with this for minor things but anything involving violence, rape or sexual offenses should be carried into adulthood.

The thought they can do what they want as a child with no repercussions for the future makes some just not care.

Hi there A.J.PHILIPS...

The veracity contained in your second last paragraph has always intrigued me? There's no doubt that prisons, do (manifestly) contribute to crime, and the evolution of better and more skillful criminals. Regardless of however tightly run and organised they may be. Often described as colleges for criminals. Inside they operate much like a normal community, only with two seperate sets of Administrations. One deemed to be Official with normal executive powers; while the other; Informal and Unsanctioned, but nevertheless with the power of life and death over it's entire population.

Sentencing aims of restoration and retribution being contradictory?
It's the hope of all concerned, the offender, society, the judiciary, and police, that when an individual is sent to prison he'll see the error of his ways and seek out, that which is available to him, in order to help him rehabilitate himself so that he may return to society, as a free more enlightened individual. As well as understanding his rights, his responsibilities, and limitations in that community.

As with most things it comes down to a dollar amount. I'm not suggesting A.J.P the NSW government's additional expenditure for Corrective Services, is being entirely directed toward accommodating younger offenders. But lets say 15% or 25% of these additional beds, are being directed toward younger offenders. Then perhaps we can 'explore' other options, without adding further costs to that, which has already being allocated, and see if some alternative can be found.

I think it appropriate that I confess herein, not having any viable options available, in which to add to the mix. Just an idea.
Thank you for your contribution A.J.P, you'd know far more about this type of problem than I. Regrettably, I tended to see only the sequel to long periods of incarceration unfortunately. Occasionally, I muse quietly to myself - what a bloody waste.

Another case of the system failing.

5 Sudanese, 2 of them out on bail for other offenses committing more crimes.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/35389221/melbourne-family-wake-up-to-african-gang-in-their-home/#page1

'Like a nightmare': Family wake up to African gang standing over their bed

A gang of Sudanese teenagers, armed with wooden stakes, kicked down the front door of a family's home in Melbourne's outer west, during a terrifying home invasion.

The mother and father were threatened as they cowered in their bedroom while their five-year-old daughter slept nearby.

The family told 7 News on Wednesday of their horrific ordeal, awoken by five African teenagers standing over their bed at the Melton suburb of Kurunjang.

Evening to you PHILIP S...

You mentioned crimes against the person, where the judiciary should come down much harder on the perpetrators, than those who curtail their criminal activities only to property crime. I think most reasonable folk would agree with you.

Imagine if you will a young bloke, in the process of say committing, an aggravated burglary, is disrupted by a male occupant and in an attempt to make good his escape he strikes the bloke in the face, braking his nose, but still manages to escape the premises.

His Honour takes a dim view of this and sentences the young bloke to 3 years on top, out in two, provided he behaves. This is his first conviction, and he's never been inside a gaol. If such a scheme where young offenders are removed, or alternatively never actually sent to prison in the first instance, do you think he'd make an ideal candidate for this type of correctional treatment instead of gaol?

Sure, he was convicted of an offence 'against the person' Which ordinarily should or would exclude such an offender.....? It's a curly one for sure, nevertheless it has to be determined if such a cut-off point were to be examined.

Thank you for your contribution PHILIP S.

You’ve made a valid point regarding my comment on the contradictory nature of rehabilitation and retribution, o sung wu.

To some extent the two are the same, and to what extent they are the same will vary greatly from person to person. For example, if you or I were to go to prison, we’d both be damn sure to behave ourselves a lot more once we got out. But we’re more socially adjusted than most of the prison population, which is why we’re not there in the first place.

Unfortunately, those more likely to wind up in prisons aren’t so easily swayed by a prison environment, and the difficulty in preparing such people for life on the outside, by equipping them with more socially acceptable tools to cope with it, is difficult to do when we’re supposed to be punishing them at the same time. One can’t be done without negating the other to at least some extent.

Then there’s the public and the victims to consider, which further demonstrates how challenging and contradictory balancing the two can be:

The legal system could go completely one way by making prison as miserable and as psychologically torturous as possible for prisoners, with no attempts to rehabilitate inmates - which would keep the public very happy, but less safe in the long run since we’d be releasing even bigger, and more psychologically damaged, criminals into the public. Or it could go in the complete opposite direction, which would likely result in a higher rate of rehabilitation, but a very unhappy public.

Then there's the need for deterrence to further complicate matters, on which neither scenario seems to have much effect anyway.

It's a real mind fu... flip.

Don't get me wrong, I don’t want to downplay the importance of retribution in sentencing, nor do I want to dismiss public opinion entirely as the result of fear and ignorance. Retribution is an important part of criminal justice whether some like it or not, and our need for it is an evolved trait that we can’t just switch off or pretend doesn’t exist.