ABSTRACT
You will recall from Chapter 1 that, historically, young offenders were treated the same as adults: punishment was focused on deterrence rather than reform and children were convicted and punished as adults in adult courts. In the latter part of the nineteenth century it was acknowledged that children were uniquely vulnerable. Consequently child-centred and welfarebased treatments were developed. Welfare-based treatments require that all interventions should be directed to meeting the needs of young people, rather than responding solely to their deeds (Muncie, 2004: 257). Since the late nineteenth century the principles of acting in a child’s best interests and making welfare considerations a paramount concern in court proceedings have underpinned the development of youth justice systems throughout the world. For example, as you studied in Chapter 1, in the United States of America the founders of the juvenile court assumed the role of benevolent parent and social worker rolled into one. The first official juvenile court judge asked ‘why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offence, to find out what he is physically, mentally, morally . . . ’ (Mack, 1909). Using broad discretion, the early juvenile court judge was to provide the necessary help and guidance to a young person who might otherwise proceed further down the path of chronic crime (Fox, 1996). This view of young offenders was also prevalent in Canada in the early twentieth century. Section 38 of the Canadian Juvenile Delinquents Act 1908 states that ‘every juvenile delinquent shall be treated not as a criminal, but as a misdirected and misguided child and
one needing aid, encouragement, help and assistance . . . ’ During the Parliamentary debates surrounding the Canadian Act, protection of the child and the interests of society were presented as a means of achieving each other, it was believed that no distinction should be drawn between neglected and delinquent children, that all should be recognized as of the same class and should be dealt with in a manner which serves the best interests of the child (Scott, 1907-08).
