Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Rights for ‘Hard Cases’: Alternatives to Imprisonment for Serious Offending by Children and Youth

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights and Incarceration

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology ((PSIPP))

Abstract

It is almost ubiquitous to have separate and specialized systems for children and youth in conflict with the law, but in even the most progressive of jurisdictions, children and youth convicted of serious violent offences such as homicide may be imprisoned. This chapter analyses the use of imprisonment in adult facilities against young offenders, particularly the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment, through the lens of international standards for youth justice. This issue has received little attention in the literature, posing as it does conceptual challenges to norms of youth justice, such as best interests, and involving the balancing with interests such as public safety. There is a particular focus on New Zealand, but the analysis will have wider application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, F. A. (1981). The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, P. (1994). The best interests principle: Towards a reconciliation of culture and human rights. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 8(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, B. K., & Davis, R. K. (2006). Public views on sentencing juvenile murderers: The impact of offender, offense, and perceived maturity? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(1), 55–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashkar, P. J., & Kenny, D. T. (2008). Views from the inside: Young offenders’ subjective experiences of incarceration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(5), 584–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, M. I., & Samuels, M. B. (1996). Youth, family and the law: Defining rights and establishing recognition. Journal of Law & Policy, 5, 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barretto, C., Miers, S., & Lambie, I. (2016). The views of the public on youth offenders and the New Zealand criminal justice system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16644500. Accessed February 9, 2018.

  • Bell, S. A., & Brookbanks, W. J. (2005). Mental Health Law in New Zealand. Wellington: Brookers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavadino, P. (Ed.). (1996). Children Who Kill: An Examination of the Treatment of Juveniles Who Kill in Different European Countries. Winchester: Waterside Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child Rights International Network [CRIN]. (2015). Inhuman Sentencing: Life Imprisonment of Children Around the World—Research Report. [Online]. Available https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_imprisonment_children_global_0.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2018.

  • Council of Europe. (2010). Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Child Friendly Justice: Adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 17 November 2010. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuncannan, J. (1997). Only when they’re bad: The rights and responsibilities of our children. Washington University Journal of Urban & Contemporary Law, 51, 273–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defence for Children International. (2003). Kids Behind Bars: A Study on Children in Conflict with the Law: Towards Investing in Prevention, Stopping Incarceration and Meeting International Standards. [Online]. Available http://www.kidsbehindbars.org/english/docs/RapportKBBtotaal.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2018.

  • Department of Corrections. (2007). About Time: Turning People Away from a Life of Crime and Reducing Re-offending. Wellington: New Zealand Department of Corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Corrections. (2017a). Official information request.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Corrections. (2017b). Prison Facts and Statistics—September 2017. [Online]. Available http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research_and_statistics/quarterly_prison_statistics/prison_stats_september_2017.html. Accessed February 7, 2018.

  • Department of Corrections. (2017c). Prison Operations Manual. [Online]. Available http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/627065/Prisoner-Guide-to-POM-050717.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2018.

  • Feld, B. C. (2012). Adolescent criminal responsibility, proportionality, and sentencing policy: Roper, Graham, Miller/Jackson, and the youth discount. Law & Inequality, 31, 263–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fionda, J. (Ed.). (2001). Legal Concepts of Childhood. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2016). Minimum sentencing for murder in England and Wales: A critical examination 10 years after the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Punishment & Society, 18(1), 47–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldingay, S. (2012). “Without fists”: Age mixing and its influence on safety and criminal contamination in women’s prisons. Youth Studies Australia, 31, 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldson, B. (2002). New punitiveness: The politics of child incarceration. In J. Muncie, G. Hughes, & E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings (pp. 386–400). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldson, B., & Kilkelly, U. (2013). International human rights standards and child imprisonment: Potentialities and limitations. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21(2), 345–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldson, B., & Muncie, J. (2012). Towards a global ‘child friendly’ juvenile justice? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(1), 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, P. (2011). So Brilliantly Clever: Parker, Hulme & the Murder that Shocked the World. Wellington: Awa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. A. (2012). When Children Kill Children: Penal Populism and Political Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guggenheim, M. (2005). How children’s lawyers serve state interests. Nevada Law Journal, 6(3), 805–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halsey, M. (2017). Child victims as adult offenders: Foregrounding the criminogenic effects of (unresolved) trauma and loss. British Journal of Criminology, 58(1), 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haydon, D., & Scraton, P. (2000). “Condemn a little more, understand a little less”: The political context and rights’ implications of the domestic and European rulings in the Venables-Thompson case. Journal of Law and Society, 27(3), 416–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, K. (2007). Responsibility and rights: Children and their parents in the youth justice system. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 21(2), 190–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. (1988). The Māori and the Criminal Justice System: He Whaipaanga Hou—A New Perspective. Wellington: New Zealand Department of Justice Policy and Research Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, A., & Jenks, C. (1996). Public perceptions of childhood criminality. British Journal of Sociology, 47(2), 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilkelly, U. (2008). Youth justice and children’s rights: Measuring compliance with international standards. Youth Justice, 8(3), 187–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilkelly, U., Moore, L., & Convery, U. (2002). In Our Care: Promoting the Rights of Children in Custody. Belfast: Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levick, M. L., & Schwartz, R. G. (2012). Practical implications of Miller v. Jackson: Obtaining relief in court and before the parole board. Law & Inequality, 31(2), 369–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, N. (2010). Changes to youth justice. New Zealand Law Journal, 129–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, N. (2013). “Contrasts in tolerance” in a single jurisdiction: The case of New Zealand. International Criminal Justice Review, 23(3), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, N. (2016a). Youth Justice in New Zealand (2nd ed.). Wellington: Thomson Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, N. (2016b). Case note: The sentencing of the vulnerable: P v R. Te Wharenga. The New Zealand Criminal Law Review, 61, 103–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, N. (2016c). Permanent name suppression for a child convicted of homicide. New Zealand Law Journal, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, N. (2018). ‘Manifest injustice?’ The judiciary as moderator of penal excess in the sentencing of youth for murder. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 57(1), 57–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, L. (2006). Investigation of the Circumstances Surrounding the Death at Auckland Public Hospital of Prisoner Liam John Ashley of Auckland Central Remand Prison on 25 August 2006, Report to: Chief Executive Department of Corrections. Wellington: New Zealand Department of Corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2009). Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill—Initial briefing (SP/ADV/1). Law and Order Select Committee. Tabled April 29, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muncie, J. (2005). The globalization of crime control—The case of youth and juvenile justice: Neo-liberalism, policy convergence and international conventions. Theoretical Criminology, 9(1), 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncie, J., & Goldson, B. (Eds.). (2006). Comparative Youth Justice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., Piquero, A. R., Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(4), 627–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, W., & Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2016). “Cemented in their cells”: A human rights analysis of Blessington, Elliott and the life imprisonment of children in New South Wales. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 22(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2010). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., & Clark, M. (2005). Penal populism in New Zealand. Punishment & Society, 7(3), 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (2004). Public opinion and youth justice. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 31, 495–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., & Hough, M. (2005). Sentencing young offenders: Public opinion in England and Wales. Criminal Justice, 5(3), 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal College of Psychiatrists. (2006). Child Defendants (Occasional Paper 56). [Online]. Available http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/usefulresources/publications/collegereports//op/op56.aspx. Accessed February 7, 2018.

  • Stanley, E. (2017). From care to custody: Trajectories of children in post-war New Zealand. Youth Justice, 17(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasevski, K. (Ed.). (1986). Children in Adult Prisons: An International Perspective. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2009). The mostly unintended effects of mandatory penalties: Two centuries of consistent findings. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 38(1), 65–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC]. (2007). General Comment No. 10 (2007): Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice (CRC/C/GC/10). [Online]. Available http://undocs.org/CRC/C/GC/10. Accessed February 7, 2018.

  • UN General Assembly. (1985). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice [Beijing Rules] (A/RES/40/33). Adopted November 29, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN General Assembly. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (A/RES/44/25). Adopted November 20, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN General Assembly. (1990). United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty [Havana Rules] (A/RES/45/113). Adopted December 14, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNICEF. (2003). Juvenile Justice Systems: Good Practices in Latin America. Panama: UNICEF Regional Office for the Americas and the Caribbean.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNICEF. (2006). Juvenile Justice in South Asia: Improving Protection for Children in Conflict with the Law. Kathmandu: UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNICEF. (2010). Good Practices and Promising Initiatives in Juvenile Justice in the CEE/CIS Region. Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waitangi Tribunal. (2017). Tū Mai te Rangi! Report on the Crown and Disproportionate Reoffending Rates (WAI 2540). [Online]. Available http://maorilawreview.co.nz/2017/04/tu-mai-te-rangi-the-crown-and-disproportionate-maori-reoffending-rates/. Accessed February 7, 2018.

  • Wright Monod, S. (2017). Portraying those we condemn with care: Extending the ethics of representation. Critical Criminology, 25(3), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Table of Cases

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Nessa Lynch

Authors
  1. Nessa Lynch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nessa Lynch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Elizabeth Stanley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lynch, N. (2018). Human Rights for ‘Hard Cases’: Alternatives to Imprisonment for Serious Offending by Children and Youth. In: Stanley, E. (eds) Human Rights and Incarceration. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95399-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95399-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95398-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95399-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation