|
Instructions for the tasks: Task One: Analysing young offender legislation
This task has three steps:
Step One
Prior to week four familiarise yourself with the governance lens that is being used for this module - read Osmond’s (2007) An analytics of government and the chapter written by Muncie and Hughes (2002) Modes of youth governance. This will help you to start to appreciate some of the major approaches that have been used within juvenile justice systems to govern young offending, in particular: welfarism, justice and corporatism. Lectures 3 and 4 and the associated tutorials for these two weeks will help you to identify some of the core rationalities and practices characterise these three models of governance. Raise any queries you have in tutorials in weeks 3 and 4.
Step Two
The task requires you to use the governmentality concepts that have been developed in the early weeks of the unit and apply them to contemporary young offender legislation. To complete this task select from either the Young Offenders Act, 1997 and/or the Children (Criminal proceedings) Act, 1987 only. This legislation is available from NSW Legislation link on the vUWS homepage for the unit.
If you are reading this document on line you can access this link below:
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/
Familiarise yourself with the Act (s) as a whole so that you begin to get a feel for what its objectives are and how these are realised. Then select one or two sections of the Act (eg its objectives and then, for example, the part of the act that governs youth justice conferences if you are examining the Young Offenders Act. You are not expected to analyse an entire piece of legislation for this task.
In your portfolio document the following:
At least five characteristics of one model of governance that you intend to use in relation to your analysis of the legislation: welfarism, justice, corporatism;
19 The Essay is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
Select a punishment that the Act uses when it deals with young offenders who are found guilty of criminal offences (or, who admit guilt and consent to the punishment). Briefly describe: (i) the aims/objectives of the Act that relate to this particular punishment (or, the relevant principles of the Act if there are no objectives); (ii) what is involved for the young person in relation to this punishment; (iiii) what particular rationality/rationalities of governance are evidenced in the implementation of this punishment; (iv) any possible power tactic(s) that are being used in relation to this punishment; and, (v) possible effects of this punishment on young people (positive, negative, unintended).
(350 - 400 words)
Exemplar:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act, 1987 Division 4 Penalties s 33 e Probation
Probation is a punishment where the offender is placed under the supervision of a youth justice officer from the Department of Juvenile Justice, under an order issued by the magistrate in the Children’s Court. S/he will most likely be asked to undertake certain conditions, including supervision where there will be some attempt to require the probationer to address any risk factors associated with her or his offending behaviour. In this way the aims of probation are rehabilitative – they relate to s6 welfarist principles, including: “that children who commit offences bear responsibility for their actions but, because of their state of dependency and immaturity, require guidance and assistance”. While nothing specific is said about rehabilitation in the Act, it can be assumed that this is an objective as s33 (c2)(ii) refers to "the purpose of allowing the person to demonstrate that rehabilitation has taken place". The supervision is effectively a form of coercive supervision aimed at getting "children who commit offences (to) bear responsibility for their actions" while allowing the child "to reside in his or her own home". This suggests that this older welfarist rationality has been re-worked (or re-configured) as a hybrid power strategy that now includes justice rationalities that adopt neo-liberal rationalities to make the young person responsible for their crimes even though it is still acknowledged that "because they are in a state of dependency and immaturity (that) they require guidance and assistance". Now case management is focused on risk assessments where the young offender is the chief target of supervision and not her or his family as was the case with the older welfarist technique of probation. The new hybrid technique continues to soften the punishment, but if the offender fails "to comply with a ...condition of the person's probation" (s 41 (1)(b) s/he will be issued a court attendance notice to return to the Children's Court for a consideration of an alternative penalty which may be more coercive and punitive (see s 41 of the Act). This threat is part of the neo-liberal power strategy to get the young offender to take responsibility for their crimes and to effectively self-regulate or face the consequences. There is a significant unintended effect that this intensive surveillance may deepen the offender’s criminal career.
Task two: Mapping the juvenile justice ‘system’ The Essay is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
Considering what you now know about the juvenile justice system, develop a map or diagram that provides a visual representation of the way in which the juvenile operates at the moment, including those forces that seek to reform it. After developing your map write a 500 -600 word summary that explains the key ideas behind your analysis of these questions. In writing this summary consider whether Muncie and Hughes (2002) are correct in characterising juvenile justice as an ‘amalgam’ (ie a mixture of heterogeneous rationalities and practices) or whether you think that the network of relations that you have mapped has some kind of overall coherence. If so, what gives it this coherence? Briefly consider Muncie and Hughes (2002: 1) proposition about how the juvenile justice system is expanding1 – what evidence can you see of this in NSW and how have you mapped this onto your map?
Some suggestions for completing this task:
Use Muncie and Hughes (2002) Modes of youth governance to assist you while completing this task. This should be an important resource for you.
1 See Muncie and Hughes (2002: 12-16 for some examples of these expansionary tendencies which are often hybrid in form. 20
If you put too much detail into your map it may become too complicated – what are the key lines of analysis that you want to emphasise?
Try to map this network in week 4 and then continue to revise it in the light of new information over the next few weeks. I wouldn’t try to finalise it until after week 7 when we have considered youth crime prevention. I hope you will begin to appreciate then that the system is, indeed, expanding and that it now has quite complicated relations with communities, individuals and professionals who are not necessarily located ‘inside’ juvenile justice’s traditional institutions. If you are not sure about what I am talking about attend the lectures and keep asking me and your tutor about this. You might want to ask yourself here about how juvenile justice networks are extending into the community (or particular communities) and about who is becoming ‘responsibilised’ for preventing juvenile offending (or, for that matter, demanding to be included in this governance).
Keep on working on your maps in the tutorials when you can. And, keep on discussing them with your tutor.
See Appendix One of this Learning Guide for some ideas on how to begin thinking about power while you are developing your map.
The following are possible questions you might want to consider in developing your map:
2 ‘Stakeholders’ not includes professionals but also young people and their families and communities.
o
Who are the main professionals and stakeholders2 involved in the ‘system’? (in this unit we will be calling the ‘system’ a ‘field’ or a ‘network’);
o The Essay is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
Are there particular pathways that young offenders find themselves on? What are the consequences of being on particular pathways? What sorts of things (eg legislation, rationalities and practices, forms of knowledge and expertise, power tactics etc) guide actors while they are moving along these pathways? Here you might want to consider welfarism, justice and corporatism and other policies and practices that impact on young offenders
o
How is power being exercised within this network of relations? Where are young people positioned within this network? With what effects?
o
How is risk governed in this network?
o
How are you going to incorporate an indigenous lens into your map?
o
What are the boundaries of the juvenile justice system? Do they ever get crossed or blurred?
o
Who is trying to reform juvenile justice? How? What are some of the main tensions or conflicts within juvenile justice?
Do not try to answer all of these questions, nor any of them comprehensively. Use them to help you begin to map out and analyse how you think juvenile justice works and with what consequences (especially for young people and particular communities).
Task three: Critiquing a policy document
By the end of this task you will be able to critically evaluate at least one of the strategic outcome areas of the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice’s Aboriginal Strategic Plan, 2007-2011. This plan has the overarching objective of: “(establishing) a platform for well co-ordinated and targeted interventions that aims to provide improved responsiveness and better outcomes for Aboriginal young people” (D.J.J., 2007 – Annual report 2006-2007, p 34). After answering the questions described below in dot point 2 you will have undertaken a basic discourse analysis that should help you to answer the task’s core question: What criticism(s) might be levelled at the Department’s attempts to address cultural difference and effectively respond to the continued problem of the over-representation of Indigenous youth in NSW’s Juvenile Justice Centres?
Appendix Two of this Learning Guide provides a brief historical context to assist your understanding the issues that are raised in relation to the detention of Indigenous offenders.
To complete this task:
Download and familiarise yourself with:
NSW Department of Juvenile Justice Aboriginal strategic plan, 2007-2011 (This is located in vUWS on the unit’s homepage in the Assessment Folder.
While it is optional, you may also want to have a look at the related sections of Cuneen et al’s (2006) evaluation of the Department’s previous Aboriginal Over-representation Strategy and the Department’s response to this evaluation – both of these publications are located in the same folder in vUWS. These documents provide a broader context about the kinds of issues raised in planning and implementing justice programs for Aboriginal young people within the context of Aboriginal partnerships in NSW (which are facilitated by the NSW Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council within the criminal justice system through the The Essay is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
(You want to analyse and critique the document as a whole if you choose to do so – we are suggesting the selection of one outcome area so that the task is not too time consuming. )
Aboriginal Justice Agreement and its Aboriginal justice plan, 2004-2014 http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/ajac/ll_ajac.nsf/pages/ajac_publications
and the Two ways Together NSW Aboriginal Affairs Plan which provides a process of engagement and partnership with Aboriginal communities http://www.daa.nsw.gov.au/policies/
Furthermore, the Department’s response to Cuneen et al’s recommendations for the new strategic plan (eg the recommendations that they reject or only partially accept) provides some insights into the limits that Department currently places on a comprehensive governmental response to Aboriginal expectations about justice for their communities.
2.
Select at least one of the key outcome areas of the strategic plan3 such as ‘Community capacity’ or ‘Diversion’ and the list of strategies listed for achieving this outcome and answer the following questions by considering the statements made in that section of the strategic plan:
What is the specific problem(s) to be managed (in relation to the larger problem of Aboriginal over-representation)?
What solution(s) do the authors of the document use to address this problem? Do these identified strategies have any rationalities or tactics of power that they can be grouped into? (eg welfarism, managerialism, the neo-liberal responsibilisation of communities, risk governance, tertiary prevention etc)
In discussing the problem of Indigenous over-representation and ways to address this issue, what different kinds of discourses are referred to? (eg welfarism, cultural difference, community dysfunction, deficit discourses, risk discourses etc).
Now identify at least one criticism of the strategy you have been analysing (eg its capacity to deal with cultural difference, its effects on Indigenous young people etc). You might want to brainstorm other criticisms that might be brought to bear on your critical discourse analysis here.
3.
In no more than 300 words write a brief summary of your discourse analysis that answers the question: What criticism(s) might be levelled at the Department’s attempts to address cultural difference and effectively respond to the continued problem of the gross over-representation of Indigenous youth in NSW’s Juvenile Justice Centres? The Assignment is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
4.
Post this onto VUWS for your group’s discussion thread for this exercise during Week 6 between 30 March and no later than 4 April;
5.
Download and examine at least one of your group’s discussion threads and post a response of no more than 200 words that: (a) considers the criticism in the light of the relevant section of the strategic plan (and/or the document as a whole); (b) counter-balances the criticism by identifying any positives that could be identified in relation to the strategy; (c) evaluates the strategy in relation to the issue of Indigenous self-determination and/or effective partnerships by Wednesday 8 April in week 7.
6.
Document this activity in your portfolio for submission on the due date for this assessment item (please ensure to include the downloaded posting that you used for your feedback).
(maximum of 500 words)
Some suggestions for developing your critique:
Even if you are only selecting one outcome area in the Strategic Plan to focus on, read all of it to get a feeling for how it is framing the problem and, consequently, attempting to ‘manage’ the problem. It would help to do some background reading to help consolidate your perspective about how the juvenile justice system has/could respond to the issue of cultural difference. Obviously this task is asking you to use the indigenous lens to help develop your critique. Some of the previous set reading about colonialism and over-representation that we have looked at in the unit may be helpful here. You might also want to read my piece on Recognising Indigenous ways of being? (Osmond, 2007b). Also, Harry Blagg’s book (2008) Crime, Aboriginality and the decolonisation of justice would be very useful as background reading.
Ask yourself: what kinds of assumptions & understandings may be embedded within the literal problem as it is defined in the plan eg is it assuming that Aboriginal communities need assistance to become capable communities that could care for their young?
What solutions does DJJ use to address the problem? Start by reading through all the strategies suggested for the outcome area that you have selected. What are the core strategic themes described? eg in Outcome area one about capacity development - these can be broadly categorised into three key strategies: developing partnerships with Aboriginal communities; improving services to Aboriginal communities, especially in remote areas where service provision may be quite poor; and, - improving community-based correctional programs for those Aboriginal offenders released from detention or under
intensive community support (as an overall strategy this concentrates on making better choices after an offender has been convicted of a crime - it never discusses strategies that are preventive or even diversionary). The Assignment is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
•
What tactics are being used in these strategies to achieve the overall objectives for the outcome area identified? eg is this part of the plan more concerned with the neo-liberal responsibilisation of Aboriginal communities? Or, does it see these communities as being dysfunctional and then over-rely on white professionals and institutions to ‘do things for Aboriginal communities? How do the strategies seek to work with Aboriginal people?
•
What discourses referred to? A discourse is a repetitive way of talking about something (or knowing something) that is used in a power strategy - in the unit we discuss several discourses eg discourses about childhood, discourses about risk, welfarism, justice ... what discourse is evident here about cultural difference? is it a problem to be managed? do any of the statements celebrate diversity and/or seek to work with indigenous ways of being? are Aboriginal people listened to? how are their voices incorporated into practices to improve the desired outcomes? eg outcome area 1 adopts a justice rationality that responsibilises young people 'to make choices that promote positive life development'. There is no reference here to cultural difference - the problem is framed from a dominant white perspective - clearly though, Aboriginal clients pose a problem to be managed here - elders must be enlisted into pre-existing juvenile justice programs (including their recruitment as 'advisors'), the use of elders in mentoring must be 'revived', services need to be improved and better accessed by Aboriginal clients (there is nothing here about culturally appropriate practices), some innovative practices need to be 'piloted', case plans of those under the department's care need to be linked to better services - is this an attempt to better assimilate young aboriginal offenders into mainstream services? How else could over-representation be reduced? In particular, how else could 'community capacity' be understood? - especially from an indigenous standpoint?Wwhat could indigenous communities do to create strong functioning families, improve community safety or prevent crime?
•
You need to consider how cultural difference is framed and responded to as part of your critique.
•
Are there alternative ways of understanding or addressing the identified problem? Have these discourses been silenced or marginalised in the plan? eg with these sorts of question in mind you could use the NSW Aboriginal Justice Plan ( also available in vUWS in the Assessment Folder) to assist you to critique the DJJ plan. One of the problems with the DJJ plan is that it does not have an introduction about the process by which it developed its plan, nor does it identify any principles for working with Aboriginal communities, nor does it identify its implementation strategies or how it will evaluate its performance (even though it is apparently doing evidence based work for best practice). One way of critiquing the DJJ plan is to ask (i) what exactly is DJJ planning to do and how?, and then ask: (2) what else could be done/how could things be done differently? The State Justice Plan seems to provide some clues to this second line of questioning.
Here is a possible posting for the task:
Exemplar
Outcome Area 1: Community Capacity The Assignment is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
This part of the plan is concerned with building community capacity within indigenous communities for reducing offending behaviour. It articulates a very narrow conception of community capacity by stating that its strategies seek to equip Aboriginal young people to make choices that promote positive life development. This limits capacity development within Aboriginal communities into the Department’s own core business concerns about ‘justice’. However is this justice for Aboriginal young offenders when we consider the level of over-representation experienced within their communities? Or is it justice as it is defined by neo-liberalism? These justice rationalities are more concerned with individual offenders using a neo-liberal rational choice actor - the young offender - who (apparently) will make 'positive choices' assisted by mostly mainstream non-indigenous services. Worse than this, the focus here is on young offenders who have already been convicted and may have very well spent time in detention. Indigenous communities would be more likely to describe capacity development in quite different ways that express the need for holistic approaches to remedy the ongoing effects of colonisation on communities and the need for self determination in addressing their problems. For example, principle 1 of the NSW Aboriginal Justice Plan says: 'As Aboriginal people understand their own problems and issues, they are best placed to find innovative ways to address them. In that plan, when it plans for 'capacity building', it develops strategies for community well-being (building the capacity, self worth and resilience of Aboriginal people to create strong functioning families, early intervention and prevention programs for addressing offending behaviour etc) as well as the creation of a sustainable economic base for Indigenous communities. 23
And, another critique of the same outcome area:
Given the continued over-representation of Aboriginal young offenders in the more punitive sanctions of the juvenile justice system, Outcome area 1 defines part of this problem from a managerialist and paternalistic stance that "young people can(not) make (positive) choices that promote positive life development" as they come from communities that do not always have the capacity to support and educate their young to make these choices. The section does not provide any policy framework that would provide greater insight into this problematisation. In contrast to this strategic plan, the NSW Aboriginal Justice Plan used a ground-up approach involving extensive community consultation to negotiate and arrive at a consensus for a partnership between Aboriginal communities and governmental agencies. The DJJ plan retains the upper hand in its dealings with Aboriginal communities. It limits its practices of partnership to incorporating elders and 'Aboriginal people who (currently) work with and/or for our stakeholders such as Police, DoCS and Aboriginal legal Services'. Further it focuses on strategies that seek to improve service delivery for Aboriginal offenders after they have been placed on community supervision or post-release from detention. There are no primary preventive strategies identified here. The plan makes limited effort to re-configure its services in an active partnership with Aboriginal communities - rather, it seeks to enlist and assimilate cultural difference (ie Aboriginality) into its pre-existing rationalities and practices, based on neo-liberal justice rationalities (where individual offenders are responsible for making positive choices). There is no evidence of any acknowledgement that "Aboriginal people understand their own problems and issues, (thus being) best placed to find innovative ways of dealing with them", nor of "the significant cultural diversity among NSW Aboriginal communities" that will be "recognised and respected, along with their differing needs" (principles 1 and 2 of NSW the Aboriginal Justice Plan). Rather, services will be improved by the co-opting of some selected Aboriginal representatives into the hard-end of the system.
Task four: Critiquing a youth crime prevention program
This task requires you to familiarise yourself with a youth crime prevention program (see instructions below) and then to critically analyse it using one of the two frameworks that we investigate in Lecture 8 and the tutorial for that week. These two frameworks are: Cohen’s (1979; 1985) critique of community-based punishments in terms of net-widening, and, Zedner’s (2007) identification of the ‘pre-crime era’ and the concerns that this raises.
The task:
Select one of the following youth programs and familiarise yourself with its objectives, services and any evaluations that you can find about the program:
(i)
Youth Justice Conferencing; The Assignment is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
(ii)
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO’s) in England or the Anti-Social Behaviour Pilot Project in NSW
(iii)
A community-based youth prevention program that has been funded to address either a particular kind of offence or that addresses particular risks associated with a particular kind of youth offence. You will need to obtain approval from your tutor before finalising your selection if you select this option. DJJ funds a range of these kinds of programs in the community that may either work with young offenders in order to address risks associated with re-offending as well as programs who work with young people ‘at risk’ of committing crimes (who have not yet committed crimes). Similarly, the Crime Prevention Division of the NSW Attorney-General’s Department funds similar kinds of programs. In addition there will be a number of these kinds of programs operating in NSW for Aboriginal young people as part of the regional initiatives of the Aboriginal Justice Plan.
After you have researched your selected program complete the following:
How can this program be understood as being ‘preventive’?
What specific risks does this program address?
Select one of the two tasks - either: (i) using Cohen’s(1979; 1985) framework for analysing net-widening, identify the main criticisms that could be levelled at the program; or, (ii) which elements of Zedner’s (2007) description of the ‘pre-crime era’ are evident in the operations of your selected program? (see Zedner, pp 262-266). What issues or concerns do any of these elements raise in relation to young people’s rights and social justice?
In the light of your criticisms developed in your analysis, briefly conclude on the relative strengths and weaknesses of this program for empowering young people. The Assignment is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
(650-750 words) 24
Some suggestions for developing your critique:
Of the four tasks, this one is the most substantive – it requires you to read more widely including: about the program itself and any evaluations that have been made of it, and, the set readings for wk 8 that will assist you with your critique. The assessment folder contains a sub-folder that provides relevant materials that could help with this task eg it contains readings about anti-social behaviour orders, information about risk and so on.
The lectures and tutorials for wks 5-8 should all help with this task, especially for wk 8.
A critical analysis is not necessarily only about identifying weaknesses and negative evaluations of something, it can equally be about identifying strengths and developing positive lines of argumentation. However in this task you will need to familiarise yourself with Cohen’s or Zedner’s analysis and then apply it to the program that you are analysing.
In relation to Q 1 – clarify if the selected program is primary, secondary or tertiary prevention and then identify whether it is coercive, developmental or accommodating using Cuneen and White’s models (2008: 312-317). Briefly justify this by describing relevant aspects of the program
For Q 2 firstly identify the risk factors addressed in the program. This may be quite straightforward for some programs but less so for others. In the broadest sense programs have become increasingly concerned with the risk of re-offending (recidivism) as it is now routinely evaluated in relation to interventions for young offenders. If you selected ASBO’s you would be able to work out how this kind of youth behaviour is linked to particular risks associated with familial background, structural disadvantage and so on. However, is this kind of intervention developmental in its approach as would be indicated by the risk factors associated with it, or, is it coercive? Youth conferencing can potentially deal with virtually any risk as it is a quite flexible way of intervening. If you select this program you might want to consider what sorts of offences are most likely to be taken to conferencing and get an idea of what kind of case plans are developed in relation to these offences. This will help you to identify the risk factors and to evaluate whether the interventions are the most appropriate. eg a lot of malicious damage offences go to conferencing, in particular in relation to graffiti offences. DJJ will be presenting in wk 7, including about conferencing. In addition, this program has now been evaluated a number of times in NSW. The Assignment is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
Cohen’s key point is that community punishments tend to increase rather than decrease the amount of offenders that comet into the criminal justice system in the first place – this is somewhat paradoxical as juvenile crime policy is now centrally concerned with diversion. In other words, Cohen is talking about net-widening effects of community-based programs. At the bare minimum in Q 3 you need to answer the question: is your selected program a form of net-widening? (and justify your analysis). Cohen asks three kinds of questions about net-widening (the size and density of the net, the net’s identity, including whether its boundaries are blurred, and, its effects. To do really well in this task you will need to consider and respond to some of these questions in your analysis. There is an unpublished article by Griffin (2005) in the assessment folder that applies Cohen’s analysis to juvenile conferencing. This is interesting as the conclusions that are drawn there about net-widening are quite different to those made by Chan (2005) when she evaluated conferencing in NSW in terms of net-widening.
Zedner (2007: 262) asserts that we are now living in a ‘pre-crime society’ – “a society in which the possibility of forestalling risks competes with and even takes precedence over responding to wrongs done”. In this sense we can see how youth crime prevention programs that are concerned with risks could be understood as part of the pre-crime era as they often anticipate and attempt to forestall crimes that have not yet occurred (think about that movie about thought crimes! and then think about pre-emptive measures and terrorism). On pp 263-266 she identifies some core features of pre-crime governance. These are centrally concerned with security and the governance of risks that are increasingly provided by private security mechanisms – this has meant that these security measures are driven less by the public good and more by economic and sectional interests. It is in this light that we can see concerns about the use of ‘contractual’ governance, especially when these forms of regulation are conducted by non-state authorities. Crawford (2003) (this is also in the assessment folder) describes the contractual governance of deviant behaviour as “a technique of ‘regulated self-regulation…(tha)t operates in the shadow of the law…as a back-up system” (2003: 488). In his account of this problematic mode of governance he specifically describes ASBO’s (pp 491-493), restorative justice (p 497) and referral orders and youth offender contracts (pp 498-499). You might want to consider if the program you are describing is driven more by security concerns (eg which is the case with actuarial justice) than it is with prevention and social justice for young people as well as considering what sectional interests are driving the program.
Be sure to draw a conclusion. The Assignment is provided by UK Assignment http://www.ukassignment.org
Documenting your tasks in the portfolio Your four tasks will be submitted using a portfolio format. That means that you will assemble your work on each separate task into a whole. Over the course of completing the tasks you may obtain field notes, diagrams, research evidence and so on. You must decide what to put into the portfolio and what to omit. Some of this material may be appropriately placed in appendices at the end of the portfolio. In writing up your work for these tasks you may adopt a style of writing that uses mixed genres – where appropriate use a formal, structured academic format, however some tasks can be addressed using point form. The essay should be a minimum of 2,500 words, excluding references. Please use appropriate referencing when using other author’s ideas. The use of ‘I’ statements is acceptable, although viewpoints need to be substantiated using relevant literature and empirical evidence. The tasks should be word-processed and double-spaced. A hard copy should be submitted in the usual manner.
Assessment criteria
Marking Criteria Unsatis-factory Satis-factory Good Excellent
Ability to identify modes of governance in young offender legislation as demonstrated by an analysis of a punishment used for young offenders in NSW
Convincing explanation of how colonialism and/or orientalism can be used to explain the over-representation of Aboriginal young people in the most punitive juvenile justice interventions
Understanding of the nature of the juvenile justice system as demonstrated by the map and summary completed for task
Awareness of socio-political forces that both shape and seek to reform the juvenile justice system
Convincing critique of the DJJ Aboriginal Strategic Plan as demonstrated by your own posting to vUWS and your feedback to another person’s posting
Developing capacity to analyse social processes that impact on young people that acknowledges multiple/complex elements and forces
Demonstrates some awareness of risks associated with young people’s offending and of the ways in which they have been addressed
Provides a critical analysis of a crime prevention program that effectively applies at least one of the two frameworks provided by Cohen or Zedner providing evidence to support this from the program as well as a convincing argument
Overall ability to critically analyse the juvenile justice system using a governance lens
Overall ability to critically analyse the juvenile justice system using an indigenous lens
Critical awareness of forces that criminalize young people
A developing critical appreciation of productive interventions for working with young offenders & those at risk of offending
Appropriate referencing
|
