I seriously doubt that young first timers are sentenced to jail unless their crimes are extremely severe and society needs protection from them.

AJ Philips - Interesting seems to support what you say.

For over forty years, America's "War on Drugs" has accounted for 45 million arrests, made America the world's largest jailer, and damaged poor communities at home and abroad. Yet for all that, drugs in America are cheaper, purer, and more available today than ever before.

o sung wu, "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."

What is the chasm between them and the young men and women remembered on ANZAC Day?

Similarly, why do so many who started in most unsatisfactory circumstances still manage to live their lives as exemplary good citizens?

Where does choice and individual responsibility come into it?

Why no similar compassion and urgency to rescue where the many good kids and youth, male and female, are doing it really hard and are getting up that one more time every time that fate deals them another blow in life? Just ignore them as they must learn their lessons?

To my way of thinking i say these young people need training as in military training. A lesson in growing up fast, and respect of their sergeant, prison could go the other way.

There’s some good questions there, leoj. Each one of them so massive that they would justify their own discussion thread - or multiple discussion threads for each. They’re so big, in fact, that I’m reluctant to even get into one of them here, let alone all three, but here goes nothing…

<<What is the chasm between them and the young men and women remembered on ANZAC Day?>>

Many reasons.

One is that - since the invention of radio, television, and now the internet - youth have been increasingly forming their own subcultures because these new medium have allowed youth to communicate more than they could before such technology existed (i.e. through music, etc.). What this means is that memes have been increasingly acquired by youth ‘horizonally’ (i.e. from their peers) rather than ‘vertically’ (i.e. from their elders).

There was some validity to the moral panic sparked by rock ‘n’ roll and the Beatles, as much as I hate to admit it.

<<Similarly, why do so many who started in most unsatisfactory circumstances still manage to live their lives as exemplary good citizens?>>

Developmental criminology and biosocial criminology are entire branches of criminology that shed light on this. The answers will be different for every individual, but basically genetics, ‘transitions’, and ‘turning-points’ help to explain why.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=biosocial+criminology+genetics&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=transition+and+turning+points&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

<<Where does choice and individual responsibility come into it?>>

The free-will vs determinism debate will forever rage. To the surprise of many (and to the disgust and fierce objection of Libertarians), it’s possible to argue that we have no free will at all. It may just be an illusion. However, this can never mean that offenders are not held to account for their actions. The legal system could never work that way, no matter how much we may lack free will.

Long Bay Gaol's principal function is to manufacture criminals,and/or modify unsuccessful criminals into being better, more prosperous criminals. So says a middle aged bloke I know well (a 'bust' merchant) who's been in and out of prison his entire life and is hitherto, now known as just another 'boob rat'!

A.J.PHILIPS a qualified Criminologist, speaks of the contradictory nature of rehabilitation and retribution, describing in part how tough it is for governments to get the correct balance right in order to satisfy society's, and the victims need, for retribution, in some case perhaps, revenge? And at the same time, provide the necessary wherewithal, for the offender to attempt to restore himself, to a useful member of society. A massive ask, with no easy answer?

The smartest, the most innovative academics have been grappling with the problem for years. Come down too hard on inmates, you have unrest, dissension, ultimately rebellion. More often than not it's the weaker, more vulnerable prisoners who are at greater risk, when a prison is 'running hot' in a state of unrest (hostages, bashing's, and rapes etc).

Conversely, to allow inmates to participate in a more liberal, even more indulgent system of imprisonment, and they'll immediately take advantage of it. Perceiving it as a clear sign of weakness by those in authority. Gaols must be strict, but fair. Come on too hard, they'll burn the place to the ground (Bathurst Riots) Too lenient, well we've dealt with the liberal approach. Firm but Fair.

One thing we must do, absolutely. Whenever humanly possible; keep young first-timers, out of the Prison environment - And not allow; 'Long Bay Gaol to manufacture yet another (young) criminal'.

Thankyou for further expanding upon this complex question A.J.PHILIPS.