1
Youth Detention in Australia:
A Credibility Analysis
School of Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University
POLI1025: Power and Governance
Keagan Andrew Day O Guaire
May 05, 2023
, 2
The juvenile justice system in Australia has been the subject of intense debate for decades, with
competing interests vying for attention. Some argue that children possess inherent entitlements that
necessitate safeguarding, irrespective of their criminal actions. Conversely, others posit that preserving
the public against criminal conduct is a fundamental entitlement, regardless of the offender's age. The
conflict between these two viewpoints climaxed in 2016 with the riots at Victoria's Parkville Youth
Justice Centre, emphasising the existing tensions. This brief paper evaluates the credibility of two recent
arguments about protecting human rights versus individual rights. In the case of Johannsen, he endorses
the Australian government's current approach to juvenile detention, emphasising the favourable impact of
facilities such as Parkville. However, Clancey et al. are rather critical and argue that the government
should prioritise the diversion of juvenile delinquents over detention as the sole resolution. The debate
centres around whether young offenders should be held responsible for their transgressions or if their
psychological immaturity precludes them from assuming accountability. As noted above, the authors
adopt divergent approaches to their respective papers, whose arguments I shall now summarise and
evaluate.
In the first reading, Johannsen makes the case and presents evidence addressing one question:
How should the Australian government deal with young male offenders who deliberately choose to break
the law? His main claim is that the government's substantial military power to manage the riot following
the 2016 Parkville Youth Justice Centre occurrence was "due and proportionate". Citing the UN Covenant
on the Rights of the Child 1989, Johannsen argues that the breach of the principle of legality cannot be
rationalised by either one's age or entitlement, as specified in the covenant. To evidence his assertation, he
also references the outcomes of the 2017 Saulwick public opinion poll, which indicated that a majority of
69% of individuals residing in Victoria expressed their endorsement of the government's detention of
young offenders in facilities such as Parkville. Johannsen further claims that the detention of juvenile
delinquents is advantageous as it provides them with optimal prospects of evading a prolonged criminal
trajectory. To substantiate this claim, he cites the work of Ian Lanyon, the former director of Youth
Custodial Services at the Parkville Juvenile Justice Centre. He emphasises that Parkville has seen a
remarkable reform since 2011 under Lanyon's leadership, highlighting the exceptional academic standard
of the facility, enhanced security measures, and adoption of modern staff training programmes. Johannsen
concludes that given that Parkville has implemented necessary steps to facilitate the detention and
rehabilitation of incarcerated youth, making it an ideal setting for juvenile offenders. However, the
authors of the second reading have contrasting viewpoints, which I now discuss.
In 2020 the Australian Institute of Criminology put forward a report exploring the key themes
arising from recent Australian Youth Justice Services reviews. The authors, Clancey et al., pose the
Youth Detention in Australia:
A Credibility Analysis
School of Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University
POLI1025: Power and Governance
Keagan Andrew Day O Guaire
May 05, 2023
, 2
The juvenile justice system in Australia has been the subject of intense debate for decades, with
competing interests vying for attention. Some argue that children possess inherent entitlements that
necessitate safeguarding, irrespective of their criminal actions. Conversely, others posit that preserving
the public against criminal conduct is a fundamental entitlement, regardless of the offender's age. The
conflict between these two viewpoints climaxed in 2016 with the riots at Victoria's Parkville Youth
Justice Centre, emphasising the existing tensions. This brief paper evaluates the credibility of two recent
arguments about protecting human rights versus individual rights. In the case of Johannsen, he endorses
the Australian government's current approach to juvenile detention, emphasising the favourable impact of
facilities such as Parkville. However, Clancey et al. are rather critical and argue that the government
should prioritise the diversion of juvenile delinquents over detention as the sole resolution. The debate
centres around whether young offenders should be held responsible for their transgressions or if their
psychological immaturity precludes them from assuming accountability. As noted above, the authors
adopt divergent approaches to their respective papers, whose arguments I shall now summarise and
evaluate.
In the first reading, Johannsen makes the case and presents evidence addressing one question:
How should the Australian government deal with young male offenders who deliberately choose to break
the law? His main claim is that the government's substantial military power to manage the riot following
the 2016 Parkville Youth Justice Centre occurrence was "due and proportionate". Citing the UN Covenant
on the Rights of the Child 1989, Johannsen argues that the breach of the principle of legality cannot be
rationalised by either one's age or entitlement, as specified in the covenant. To evidence his assertation, he
also references the outcomes of the 2017 Saulwick public opinion poll, which indicated that a majority of
69% of individuals residing in Victoria expressed their endorsement of the government's detention of
young offenders in facilities such as Parkville. Johannsen further claims that the detention of juvenile
delinquents is advantageous as it provides them with optimal prospects of evading a prolonged criminal
trajectory. To substantiate this claim, he cites the work of Ian Lanyon, the former director of Youth
Custodial Services at the Parkville Juvenile Justice Centre. He emphasises that Parkville has seen a
remarkable reform since 2011 under Lanyon's leadership, highlighting the exceptional academic standard
of the facility, enhanced security measures, and adoption of modern staff training programmes. Johannsen
concludes that given that Parkville has implemented necessary steps to facilitate the detention and
rehabilitation of incarcerated youth, making it an ideal setting for juvenile offenders. However, the
authors of the second reading have contrasting viewpoints, which I now discuss.
In 2020 the Australian Institute of Criminology put forward a report exploring the key themes
arising from recent Australian Youth Justice Services reviews. The authors, Clancey et al., pose the
