Victoria's Found Turn-against-Caution Act reflects the centuries-old conflict between the reform and reaction. How did we get back here? | Russell Marks

AAccording to Jill Meagher's Murder (in 2012) and the attack by Bourke Street (in 2012) and the Bourke Street attack, Victoria replaced one of the most restrictive deposit regime in the country and milks in 2023 after criticism of the legacy of a forensic doctor in the death of Veronica Nelson in a milk in a Melburne prison in a Melon prison in a Melburs prison in a Melburs prison.

It was not two years ago that these in 2023 reforms. But Premier Jacinta Allan has now completely reversed this positionPresent Waste to introduce the “toughest deposit laws in Australia”. This is followed by clear petitions of social media influencers, FM radiom or the tabloid, all of which require a reaction to youth crime that devours the suburbs.

Allan has now apologized to victims of crimes who were committed while perpetrators were against the deposit in 2023. Under the changes, the Victorians can be the removal of the principle that children should only be detained in custody.

Victoria's Investment on the deposit laws is an expression of the centuries-old conflict between the reform forces and the reaction forces that define criminal justice policy. Reformers cite solid evidence that the prison for the social generators of criminal behavior is an extremely expensive, ineffective and ultimately self-defeated band AID solution. They emphasize the astonishing number of deaths in custody, especially of first nations people (including Ms. Nelson, who was arrested for shop theft). They refer to the traumatic and criminogenic effects of custody, especially children.

But it is the reaction powers that are fueled by deeply felt, often disadvantageous views that we adhere to what young “rackets” do and do not earn -which now influence. If the tabloids for News Corpe boulevard movement with “pint-size criminals” have referred to, it has become such an election dynamic that it gains elections.

At the beginning of 2018, the Labor parties formed a government in all main land states and areas with the exception of New South Wales, and in some places it was really difficult to see how the oppositions with liberal brand would ever regain the government benches. Seven years later you will find a way.

The first thing this did was the Liberal Party in Northern Territory Country, which last year was advised by boulevard period and social media campaigns to become hard to get criminal children. During its first sitting week, the CLP government rammed through legislation, in which the historical achievement of Territory Labor was increased to 12 years to 12 years. For her basis, her language had emphasized “sensible consequences” for 10-year-olds before the election, who violated the law. She also promised to reintroduce spitting joints (prohibited after a pioneering Royal Commission in 2016) to clear up police powers and to tighten the deposit laws.

None of this is new, and partly that is the point. Finocchiaro and her team were determined to withdraw and lift themselves, the few royal commissions inspired changes that Labor Labor was not already in the context of a broader cultural war on which contract negotiations belonged. It turns out that it contained many, many voices for them.

The Liberal National Party noted across the border in Queensland. While David Crisafullis promised LNP to “distract” young people from the criminal judicial system, it also promised to do this much less likely by allowed the conviction to “judge them on every police, the justice and injury to the child” and ensure that the criminal history of a child follows them in adulthood.

These changes fundamentally attack the principles that separate the separate youth judicial regime underpins, whereby the most important thing is based on our understanding of the development of young people and the effects of trauma (on the one hand) and the supportive intervention (on the other hand). Children to describe as a crook and “racket” – a favorite word among the media and politicians of vigilante – is one of the worst things that we can do young people who forge their identity and learn their places in the world.

The moral panic of youth crime had won the elections in the NT and in Queensland reactionary, and the rest of the country learned the lesson. The federal agreement to increase the age of criminal responsibility was quickly broken off outside of the law. This month, the Labor government in South Australia revealed plans for the “treatment of teenagers such as bicycles” (as the title page of the advertiser put it), and now the Labor government of Victoria – which was always reactionary to youth crimes under Dan Andrews, despite its most progressive state in the country – the toughest deposit in the country in the panic in panic in a panic in a panic Crime.

Most of the crime committed by young people are a symptom for much deeper social problems, which are often created or at least maintained by failures in public order. The children, who are now on the northern territory – are practically all Aborigines – are the children of the intervention, who, among other things, converted their communities in mini police states. Before they started to commit crime, most young criminals were victims of really terrible childhood. They characterize them and punish them more heavily to reduce crime and create safer communities – if at all, it has the opposite effect.

But these lessons are ignored and quickly given up in our new commitment to reaction to reasonable politics – when will we learn?

• Russell Marks is a criminal and extraordinary research Fellow at La Trobe University. His latest book is Black Lives, White Law: Enress and Encess in Australia (La Trobe University Press, 2022)