1 / 26

High-Risk Offenders under the Age of 18 The Social Services Perspective

High-Risk Offenders under the Age of 18 The Social Services Perspective. Tove Pettersson National Board of Institutional Care (SiS) Sweden Tove.pettersson@stat-inst.se. Youth offenders in Sweden. Long tradition of handling youth offenders within the social service system.

eyal
Download Presentation

High-Risk Offenders under the Age of 18 The Social Services Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. High-Risk Offenders under the Age of 18The Social Services Perspective Tove Pettersson National Board of Institutional Care (SiS) Sweden Tove.pettersson@stat-inst.se

  2. Youth offenders in Sweden • Long tradition of handling youth offenders within the social service system. • Youths under the age of 18 may be sentenced to prison for particularly serious offences. • Enforcement of Institutional Care of Young Persons Act (LSU) • In force since 1999.

  3. Motives for changing the law • A long-standing principle that sentencing young offenders to prison should only be a rare exception. - Not reasonable to punish youth as hard as adults - Prison involves special risks for youths • UN convention on the rights of the child - Alternatives to prison should be available

  4. Motives for changing the law • Severe crimes needs powerful reactions from the society - Deterrence - Setting fundamental limits - Corresponds to the demands from the society of equal and just jurisdiction - The principles of proportionality and predictability The present legislation was not satisfactory since the only incarceration the justice system could offer was prison, which is an unsuitable environment for children and youth

  5. Enforcement of the Institutional Care of Young Persons Act (LSU) • Sanction for young offenders aged 15–17 years • Sentencing ranges from two weeks to four years. • The application of LSU is only to be considered if no other sanction than prison is feasible • LSU-sentenced are to be served in specially designated/approved homes run by the National Board of Institutional Care

  6. Why the National Board of Institutional Care? The youths’ need for treatment should not be taken into consideration when courts rule on sentences – only a reaction to the crime however The youths’ need for treatment should be assigned great importance when the punishment is enforced.

  7. National Board of Institutional Care • Was established in 1994 • Is responsible for the society’s most disadvantaged individuals who have been sentenced to care, either by County Administrative Courts according to the Care of Drug and Alcohol Abusers Act (LVM) or the Care of Young Persons [Special Provisions] Act (LVU). • Manages 13 LVM homes and 32 special approved homes for youth • Responsible for managingclosed institutional youth care • Experience with treatment of serious youth offenders • Responsible for both initiating and financing research within the area of treatment of youth offenders.

  8. Enforcement of Institutional Care of Young Persons Act (LSU) • Initial placement in secure facilities, gradually evolving into more open forms • Individual treatment plans, regular programme activities and education at the National Board’s own schools • Joint post-treatment planning with social services • 68 LSU places at six special approved youth homes • In 2007, the average sentence was approximately ten months. Five of 81 admitted young persons were girls.

  9. Treatment during youth-home placement and youths’ level of satisfaction Individual treatment plans

  10. Boys released 2006 Comparison between interviewed boys released from LSU (N=65) and LVU (N=396). Average age: LSU 18 years, LVU 16 years

  11. Proportion of boys expressing a need for help with crime and education

  12. Proportion of youths who got help with crime rehabilitation (only those who expressed a need for help)

  13. Proportion of youths who got help with their education (only those who expressed a need for help)

  14. How did you get on at the youth home?

  15. Have the staff understood what you wanted help with?

  16. Did you get the help you wanted?

  17. Have the staff taken the time to talk to you (when you needed it)?

  18. Have you had the possibility to discuss your treatment?

  19. Has it been good for you to be here?

  20. Would you recommend this youth home to a friend in the same situation?

  21. Staff’s assessment of cooperation with the youth

  22. Staff’s assessment of cooperation with the social services

  23. Youth participation in treatment programmes and activities, LSUPer cent

  24. Transfer and preparation for the time after the releasePer cent

  25. Concluding remarks and the future Both strengthenedhumanistic approach and increased severity in punishment of youth • Prison almost abolished for youths under 18 years of age • Net – widening effect on length of sentences - Youths aged 15-17 sentenced to prison on average 5.4 months - Youths aged 15-17 sentenced to secure youth care on average 9.5 months • Low-risk youths placed in secured institutions?

  26. Does the law need to be modified? Aftercare • The social services are not sufficiently involved • Lack of structured treatment programs and activities, as well as other forms of support • Discussion of introducing statutory “aftercare” - Very different needs of the youth - Several parts involved

More Related