Advantages Of Aboriginal Youth In Criminal Law

Indigenous Youth & Criminal Law Institutions
Introduction
Indigenous Australian youth experience high levels of disadvantage and injustice in today’s society in a variety of areas. One area of significant disadvantage involves their contact with criminal law institutions. Indigenous youth come into contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) at a consistently higher rate than that of non-indigenous youth and are significantly over-represented in court cases and community detention, leading to fewer life chance in their future (Allard et al. 2010). Additionally, Indigenous youth’s social disadvantage in criminal law institutions has led to barriers that prevent indigenous youth from accessing and achieving justice. This essay will identify

Criminal law institutions will refer to all official processes and procedures made by criminal justice agencies until punishment is given. Indigenous youths refer to both Aboriginal and Torres State Islanders between the ages of 0-17. ‘White race privilege’ refers to the privileges disturbed at birth to those of white skin for no reason other than the colour of their skin, leading them to have more advantages in life (Carpenter and Ball, 2012, 98). Structural inequality occurs when certain individuals or groups are provided with more opportunities to prosper in life than others (Carpenter and Ball, 2012, 64). Lottery of birth refers to the situation an individual is born into for which they have no control over (Carpenter and Ball, 2012, 64). Life chances refer to the opportunities given to us at birth by chance to succeed in life (Carpenter and Ball, 2012, 64). Finally, sociological imagination refers to observing Indigenous youth’s contact with criminal law from a society’s perspective with contributing factors outside their control rather than an individual problem (Carpenter and Ball, 2012,

Current legislation allows police organisation the power of discretion which heavily influences the amount of contact an indigenous young person will have with the CJS (Pheeney, 2013; Council of Australian Government 2014). Police’s use of discretion has been seen to be an efficient process in responding to offending that reduces the criminogenic effects of detention as well as negative stigmatisation and contact with other offenders (Allard et al. 2010). However, it is evident throughout studies that Indigenous youth experience a significant lack of fair discretion when encountering police in comparison with non-indigenous youth, such as being referred to courts rather than being cautioned or warned (Snowball 2008; Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse 2010; Brown 2012). This is a clear example of ‘white race privilege’ as it demonstrates the discrimination subjected to Indigenous youth than non-Indigenous youth through the use of police discretion. This use of discretion can result in Indigenous youth entering the CJS and come into contact with other offenders, which can cause youth to re-enter the system later on or have difficulty in obtaining employment. It can, therefore, be seen how the police’s use of discretion on Indigenous youth can affect their disadvantage, life chances and