1 / 45

INSTITUTIONAL CARE OF JUVENILES AND THE NORDIC MODEL OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

INSTITUTIONAL CARE OF JUVENILES AND THE NORDIC MODEL OF JUVENILE JUSTICE. High-risk Offenders under the Age of 18 European Conference in Oslo, Norway June 5-6, 2008. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä National Research Institute of Legal Policy Finland. “Nordic Model” of Juvenile Justice.

twila
Download Presentation

INSTITUTIONAL CARE OF JUVENILES AND THE NORDIC MODEL OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

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. INSTITUTIONAL CARE OF JUVENILES AND THE NORDIC MODEL OF JUVENILE JUSTICE High-risk Offenders under the Age of 18 European Conference in Oslo, Norway June 5-6, 2008. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä National Research Institute of Legal PolicyFinland

  2. “Nordic Model” of Juvenile Justice • Child protection legislation (early 1900s): Municipal authorities have the right to interfere behaviour of children • Main emphasis in dealing with juvenile crime on child welfare and social service • Fairly high age (15 y) of criminal responsibility • No juvenile courts or specific juvenile codes • Fairly few specific juvenile sanctions • ->The role of imprisonment quite restricted • ->The role of child welfare must be acknowledged

  3. The diminishingrole of imprisonment in Finland • Social liberalcritics 1960s-> • Reduce the overalluse of imprisonment • Avoid the use of prisonespecially in youngerage-groups • Reduce the use of puntivelymotivatedplacements in reformatoryschools • Make a cleardifferencebewteencare and coercion: no punishmentsunder the falselabel of ”treatment” • Takecare of legalsafeguards

  4. Court-imposed prison sentences for juvenils 1975-2006 15-17 y 18-20 y 1975 761 2204 1985 444 1442 1995 117 827 2006 65 724

  5. Court-imposed prison sentences for juveniles 1985-2006 (15-17 years)

  6. The number of juveniles (15-17 y) in Finnish prisons 1975-2007 (annual averages)

  7. TRENDS AND CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL CHILD WELFARE From punitive responses (1960s) to … - Best interest of the child (70s/80s) Family centerness (80s) Rights of the child (90s) Constitutional rights (2000s)

  8. Long-term trends in child welfare institutions in Finland

  9. Child welfare interventions • Best interest of the child • all interventions are supportive • criminal acts have little or no formal role • Counselling • Open care interventions • Foster care orders • Institutional placements • 1/5 non-consensual • majority based on family-based reasons

  10. CUSTODIAL CARE FOR JUVENILES AND YOUNG ADULTS

  11. Enforcingprisonsentences for juveniles and youngadults No juvenileprisons: Notenoughprisoners Alljuveniles <18 separatedfromadults in ownunits Normalityprinciple: Conditions, activities and arrangementsshouldcorrespond to those of the civilsociety Schooling & Education: In co-operationwithlocalschools Substanceabuseprograms: Coreelement in rehabilitationwork in Finland Life-skillsprograms and groupactivities Workactivities Ensuring the ”rehabilitationcontinuum”

  12. Work Out Project: Net-workmodel for rehabilitationcontinuum • Individualenforcementplancoveringbothprison-term and post-release. Creating a supportivenetwork in co-operation. • Prisonterm: Holisticrehabilitation and reinforcement of functionalabilities • Structuredsubstanceabuseprogram, debt-economiccounselling, education & workactivities, familywork, employmentcourses, creativeactivities, groupactivities. Administeredby a multi-professionalteam. • Post-release term: intensiveguidancewitheducational & therapeuticelements • Professiuonaltutoring, housingsupport, guidance/workwithsubstanceabuse, family-work. 6+6 months, organizedby WOP workers. • 35 started, 7 interrupted, in 1-3 years 1 returned to prison

  13. THE ”HEAVY END” OF CHILD PROTECTION INTERVENTIONS • 2900 children 15-17 placed outside home in Finland • Most placements are based on parent’s behaviour and family-conditions • The indirect role of crime: • Child is risking his/her own health and development by committing crimes • Always more than reason for a foster care order • Estimation: 150-200 children under 18 in involuntary residential care with ”delinquent” background • No penal motives! • Primary object: School and education • Also behavioural restrictions: 20-30 children in ”Intensive Special Care”

  14. ”ODD QUESTIONS” FOR THE CHILD WELFARE AUTHORITIES • How do the child welfare institutions relate to juvenile prisons used elsewhere in the world? • What treatment programs have been used? • How effective is this treatment in terms of Crime recution? • Different approach in CWF? • Providing a safe and secure home like environment for children for their social, emotional and personal development

  15. Comparating Penal Severity?

  16. Can juvenile justice systems be compared in terms of penal severity and in the extent of the deprivation of liberty? • Courtimposedsentences (% and /pop) • differences in ”filtering”? • Prisoners • Involuntaryrecidentialcarebased on the child’soffendingbehaviour • But: comparingdifferentinstitutions (aims, conditions, principlesetc)?

  17. Court practices

  18. Imposed prison sentences for offenders of the age of 15-17 years / 100 000 pop (2006, excl. traffic)SWE: Incl. closed juvenile careDEN+NOR: Incl. combinations

  19. Community sentences for offenders of the age of 15-17 years / 100 000 pop

  20. Prisoners

  21. Sentencedjuveniles (15-17 y) on a certainday 2001-2005. N and % of allprisoners

  22. Young prisoners (15-17 years) Share of all prisoners 2005-2006

  23. Prisoners in the age-group 15-17 in SWE, FIN and the UK (2000-2006)

  24. Prisons and child welfare institutions

  25. Juveniles (15-17 y) placed in ”closed” institutions 2006 (N and / 100 000)

  26. Age-group 15-17 in institutions: Finland & England (/100 000)

  27. TENTATIVE INTERMEDIATE SUMMARY ”NORDIC COUNTRIES VS. THE UK” Much less imprisonment in the Nordic Countries More ”welfarist custodial care” Less ”crime based” custodial care in overall in the Nordic countries

  28. Factors explaining the extent in the use of juvenile imprisonment

  29. Countries with small % of juveniles in prisons are also countries with low overall imprisonment rates

  30. The extent in the use juvenile imprisonment is associated with the same factors explaining the overall use of imprisonment • Welfare, social equality • Social & political trust • Political culture: consensus or conflict • Media • Crime fairly irrelevent

  31. No association between prisoner rates and victimization rates

  32. Large income differences go together with increased prisoner rates

  33. Investments in social welfare associates with fewer prisoners

  34. High institutional and social trust associates with low prisoner rates

  35. Comparing trends in Crime

  36. Can the success of juvenile criminal policy be assessed on the basis of crime data? • Recording differences? • Countries with welfare model tend to report less juvenile crime as % of all offenses

  37. The preventive potential of imprisonment is questioned by further observations showing… • Similar crime trends with countries with radically differing prisoner rates • Finland and 3 Scandinavian countries 1950-2005 • Finland and Scotland 1950-2007 • US and Canada 1980-2000 • Cross comparative zero-correlations between prisoner rates and crime

  38. PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATESFour Scandinavian Countries 1950-2005

  39. PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATESFinland and Scotland 1950-2006

  40. Comparing the Nordic Countries

  41. SIMILARITIES • A verysmallnumber of juvenilesunder 18 in prisons (5/ 100 000 pop) • in practice for seriousviolentcrime (homicide) • Residentialtreatment for juvenilesprovidedmainlybychildwelfareauthorities (100/pop) • punitivemotiveshave no formalrole • stillalsobehaviouralrestrictions and restrictions of movement

  42. SOME DIFFERENCES • Sweden and Denmark vs. Finland • childrenkept in sameinstitutesboth on childwelfare and criminaljusticegrounds • Sweden vs. Finland (and the others) • Social welfareinterventionsincorporated into the criminaljusticesystem as independentsanctions

  43. Benefits and risks in the NordicModel? Benefits Avoidance of imprisonment, Education and the bestinterest of the childrules in the child-welfaresystem Lowcrime Risks Transparency (what is happening in the CWF)? Legal safeguards in the CWF Co-ordinationbetween the systems No separatejuvenile CJ: punitivetrends in the adult CJ contaminatingalso the juvenile CJ?

  44. COMMON TRENDS & SHARED PROBLEMS? • Increasednumber of involuntaryfostercareorders? • Increasedmentalhealthproblemsamong the juveniles? • Blurring the bordersbetween CJ and CWF – orkeeping the roles and functions of differentsystemsseparated?

More Related