Rehabilitation through detention

Introduction

20.13 The current operation of juvenile detention centres is being subjected to two different pressures. First the centres are being subjected to increasing scrutiny through government inquiries and external reviews to address deficiencies in their operations in the interests of rehabilitation.^[15] Second there has also been a strong push for the increasing use of punitive detention measures.^[16]

Rehabilitative potential of detention

20.14 The ability of the current detention system to rehabilitate young offenders is increasingly in doubt. A number of submissions to this Inquiry acknowledged its limitations.^[17] Detention seems to criminalise young people further. The Law Society of NSW referred to anecdotal evidence that detainees learn to ‘play the game’ to make themselves eligible for early release and then re-offend following their return to society.^[18] The Townsville Community Legal Service pointed out

[r]esearch has shown that prisons often create institutionalisation or dependency, are a perfect training ground for criminal activity, as well as a network base for meeting criminals and leave children with no knowledge of basic life skills for reintegration into society.^[19]

20.15 The Open Door Youth Foundation also noted the deficiencies in detention as a form of crime prevention.

It is simply not true that if you lock up more and more offenders you will reduce crime.^[20]

20.16 Indeed, some commentators have pointed to evidence that punitive measures such as detention have a net destructive effect, in that they actually worsen the rates of recidivism.^[21] In addition to failing to deal with the underlying causes of criminal activity, it also appears that detention does not protect community safety. As one submission noted

[Detention] can create a revolving door. Children can become more aggressive towards the community and each other, and this can result in being in trouble with the law again.^[22]

Rehabilitative practice in detention centres

20.17 Clearly there will always be some children for whom a sentence of detention is considered necessary as a last resort. The Inquiry has concluded, however, that the policies, practices and procedures in juvenile detention facilities must be assessed to ensure that these children are rehabilitated. Judge McGuire of the Children’s Court of Queensland has stated

[i]f such offenders are detained in a detention centre they are out of harm’s way for the time being and cannot commit crimes against society. However, detention will not work, if when they come out, they are more criminally inclined than when they went in.^[23]

20.18 The importance of rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system is recognised to some extent in legislation in most States and Territories.^[24] However, a number of these legislative provisions point to the importance of re-integrating young detainees into the community, without making rehabilitation the explicit, primary aim of detention.^[25] Other jurisdictions refer to rehabilitation in terms of punishment.^[26]

20.19 Most governments are attempting to bring a more rehabilitative focus to the operation of their detention centres. For instance, rehabilitation is emphasised as a goal of detention in a number of detention policy documents and procedures manuals.^[27] Structured programs currently provided in detention centres cover areas such as education and employment, recreation, independent living skills, drug and alcohol counselling, pastoral care and anger management. Some centres also provide specialist programs and services, such as sex offender counselling, relapse prevention and victim empathy courses.^[28]

20.20 Despite this, it appears that rehabilitation aims are not being implemented in practice. A large number of submissions to the Inquiry expressed concerns about the current operation of juvenile detention centres.^[29] These concerns included lack of adequate living standards, case management, access to family and community contact and education and training programs. Survey responses from young people in detention also indicated their high level of dissatisfaction with the operation of the system. For instance, 45 (45%) of the 101 respondents said that juvenile detention centres do not meet the needs of young people.^[30]

20.21 Inadequate funding for rehabilitation programs in juvenile detention facilities contributes to this failure. A submission from the Townsville Community Legal Service pointed out

[w]hilst political rhetoric supports rehabilitation as a primary objective of detention, it is often not matched with funding. Adequately funded rehabilitation programs are critical in any detention centre if it is going to be successful as a means of dealing with criminal behaviour in our society.^[31]

20.22 Rehabilitation is described in policy documents and procedures manuals as an aim of juvenile detention but this has not prevented the establishment of punitive detention models. In Western Australia, for example, a work camp for young males was established despite the fact that the Management Philosophy of the Juvenile Justice Directorate emphasised rehabilitation as a key focus of detention.^[32] Camp Kurli Murri was established in 1995 near the remote town of Laverton 960 kilometres from Perth. The camp was opened following community concern in relation to juvenile crime and ‘repeat offenders’.^[33]

20.23 The work camp concept stems from US military-style correctional camps which are used as an alternative to conventional prison for young adult offenders. The US camps are designed to break down individualism and impose rigid conformity by using physical exertion, stress and shock mechanisms to ‘inculcate behavioural and attitudinal change’. Some of the shock mechanisms used include verbal abuse and bullying.^[34] The camps are aimed at punishing offenders and rehabilitating them through hardship. But their success rates seem low. Despite this, these camps are supported by some sectors of the media and public, stemming from a perception that they will address the perceived ‘youth crime wave’.^[35]

20.24 The Western Australian camp followed the US model in that it adopted a highly structured and disciplined regime and isolated the offenders through its physical remoteness and its policy of no visits for inmates.^[36] That policy was particularly significant in that it was contrary to a number of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.^[37] The proposal for the work camp was criticised widely, including by the National Children’s and Youth Law Centre, as ineffectual in rehabilitating offenders and expensive.^[38] Nonetheless, the Government proceeded with it. Camp Kurli Murri operated for a mere 18 months at a cost of approximately $3.4 million^[39] and was closed in 1996.^[40] In its place, an ‘Intensive Supervision Centre’ was established in March 1997 at Warminda to deal with persistent offenders. This new Centre is a significant improvement on the work camp and is based on a rehabilitative and restorative rather than punitive approach.^[41]

20.25 Rehabilitation needs to be established nationally as the primary aim of detention.^[42] This is particularly so given the increasing push towards punitive measures in some jurisdictions.^[43] As commentators have pointed out, although punishment is rarely cited as an aim of juvenile detention in the 1990s, it is a prevalent function of juvenile detention.^[44] Rehabilitation is beneficial not only to young offenders, but also to the community by assisting the young person to reintegrate into the community. Rehabilitation assists crime prevention by assisting to reduce the commission of further offences.