The Views of the Public on Youth Offenders and the New Zealand Criminal Justice System

Abstract

Public perceptions of crime and punishment have taken on increasing importance as countries grapple with how to address youth violence. The current study aimed to compare the views of those who have had personal experience of victimisation from youth offenders and those who have not, on what could be improved in managing youth offending in New Zealand. A qualitative methodology was used with data from open-ended survey responses from a nationally representative sample. Public sentiments favoured addressing systemic issues and providing rehabilitation as main emphases followed by more punitive measures, prevention, and restorative justice. Victims were over-represented on sentiments of prevention whereas non-victims were over-represented in support for more punitive measures and restorative justice. There was also considerable support for a multi-facetted approach that utilised a number of the approaches above, suggesting that the solution is as complex as the offender’s circumstances. These findings are very much in line with the current goals of the youth justice system with its emphasis on diversion and rehabilitation.

Keywords

public opinion youth offending New Zealand crime punishment rehabilitation

Introduction

Historical Background

Over the past decade the topics of crime, law, and order have been a major focus of both sides of the political spectrum in New Zealand. This however, has not always been the case. In the past, criminal justice did not get significant attention from the public as it was not something that was a part of political discourse or decision making and was not easily visible to the general public. Changes to taxation, employment, immigration, and an increase in visible crime in the media led to an increasingly heterogeneous society characterised by less social cohesion and feelings of insecurity and distrust of the government (Pratt & Clark, 2005). This resulted in a change in the position of the public in the decision making of the criminal justice system. The rise of penal populism led to a different relationship between the public and the government where “the people,” characterised by their feelings of exclusion, were able to advocate for harsher penalties through pressure groups, citizens advocates, and radio hosts who became the voice of “ordinary people” (Pratt & Clark, 2005). Thus, crime, law, and order were now major topics in both public and political spheres where public opinion carried a lot of weight and at times were even more influential than “expert knowledge” (Christie, 1993; Pratt, 2007; Pratt & Clark, 2005).

This environment of penal populism led to opportunities for the “ordinary people” to influence policy makers to impose more severe consequences on violent offenders. A prime example of this was the 1999 referendum instigated through a petition by Norm Withers whose mother was a victim of a violent crime. The petition produced an affirmative response from 91.7% of the population to the question, “Should there be a reform of the criminal justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?” (Withers, 2002, Section 1). The public empowerment following the 1999 referendum, as well as increased amounts of violent crime in the public eye due to an increase in media reports, resulted in a New Zealand public more united in response to criminal justice issues (Pratt & Clark, 2005). This led to the formation of pressure groups; most notably, the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This group was formed on the perception of an offender-centric criminal justice system that was not prioritising the needs of the victims (Pratt & Clark, 2005). They were characterised by a strong punitive view of criminal justice and endorsed harsh treatment of violent offenders while advocating for victims’ rights as the centre of the criminal justice system. The two major parties subsequently appeared to compete to offer the toughest responses to crime (Pratt & Clark, 2005) in an attempt to appease the views of the public. Even now, the discourse of crime and punishment includes statements such as “life should mean life” and “three strikes and you’re out.” In addition, in a move targeting youth offender sentencing and endorsing views of “adult time for adult crime,” the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Act 2010 excludes 17-year-olds from the Family Court and allows individuals as young as 10 to be charged in the same way as adults for serious crimes such as murder and manslaughter. These pieces of legislation essentially work to lower the age at which criminals are seen to be responsible for their own actions. Youth Court Judges responded to proposals such as these stating that they were contradictory to a philosophy that had made New Zealand a world leader in terms of youth offender treatment and that these “tough” approaches are overly simplistic (Becroft, 2009b) and can result in ineffective responses to youth offending.

Public Attitudes Toward Crime and Punishment

The themes of public perceptions of crime and punishment are by no means rare in international literature. Allen (2002) summarised what was known at the time about public opinion toward crime and youth offenders in Britain. Results of opinion polls reflected a strongly punitive opinion among the British public, with 70% responding affirmatively to questions on the need for harsher sentences and 75% of people believing that the criminal justice system was too lenient (Mattinson, Mirrlees-Black, & Britain, 2000). However, there was also evidence that the public were unaware of the actual severity of the criminal justice system, making large under-estimates of conviction and imprisonment rates (Russell & Morgan, 2001). This reflects the discrepancy found throughout the literature between public opinion and policy makers’ perceptions of these opinions. In other words, policy makers may be pressured into creating legislation based on punitive public opinion, without considering that the public may be misinformed about the true severity of the criminal justice system. What results is policy that is based on misunderstandings of public attitudes, and public attitudes that are influenced further by this legislation. For this reason, adopting the assumption that the public opinion is a highly punitive one should be tentative due to the complexity of how this opinion is formed. Issues such as these have proven to be problematic and undermine the use of opinion polls as an accurate gauge of public opinions.

Wood and Vikki (2004) explored some of the important considerations to best conduct research on public attitudes. This exploration was motivated by the observation of the aforementioned discrepancy between public attitudes and politicians’ views of these attitudes over a number of years. Their review of studies based on findings from the British Crime Survey showed that politicians perceived public attitudes toward criminal justice to be more punitive than they actually were (Hough & Roberts, 1998; Mattinson et al., 2000), which was also observed in Canadian and American populations (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher, 1997; Sprott & Doob, 1997). Kury and Ferdinand (1999) suggested that this was a consequence of an overreliance on public opinion polls, which are either poorly interpreted or have methodological inaccuracies. This is exemplified through the observation made by Kury and Ferdinand that a majority of opinion polls used very broad measures of public attitudes with questions such as “Do you feel sentences are too harsh or not harsh enough?.” This type of question is inclined to produce more punitive responses as there is no opportunity for respondents to suggest alternative views on sentencing (Roberts, 1992), which may lead to legislation being based on misinterpretations of public attitudes. Despite this, the attractiveness of the opinion poll method lies in its accessibility, even though the research suggests it is not the most accurate approach. A more focused, detailed approach results in less accessible information (i.e., more time-consuming to develop, administer, interpret, and report) but provides more accurate and reliable data and mitigates the risk of misinterpretation.

New Zealand’s data on public opinions on this matter are predominantly produced by such opinion polls. The only empirical New Zealand study on public attitudes toward offenders was conducted by Thakker (2012) who looked at public attitudes toward sex offenders in New Zealand. The results suggested that the media was the main source of information on sex offenders and that members of the public recognised that this information was not always accurate; stating that their opinions would be more likely influenced by friends and family. Another striking finding was that only 10% of participants could accurately describe legislation that pertained to sex offenders (Thakker, 2012). These findings can be seen as an interesting snapshot of the discourse of individuals on the topic but are not generalisable due to certain methodological limitations. Specifically, the means of sampling that was not as diverse as initially hoped, or large enough from which meaningful conclusions could have been drawn. Some of the questions used during focus groups were also leading, with some not acting to facilitate discussion whereas others were susceptible to change when administered by different interviewers. This study does however represent an important starting point from which public attitudes research can be done on a New Zealand population.

Specific Knowledge or Experience of Crime and Attitudes Toward Crime and Punishment

There is a growing body of literature that suggests that a large number of variables are implicated in the development of attitudes to offenders, both at the group and individual levels. Members of the public adopted a more lenient approach to offenders when they were given more contextual information about the crime and the offender (Covell & Howe, 1996; Doob & Roberts, 1983; Ghetti & Redlich, 2001; Roberts & Doob, 1990; Tufts & Roberts, 2002). Even in cases where there is pervasive support for more punitive approaches, the public still show an interest in addressing underlying social and individual circumstances that lead to offending and are targeted in offender rehabilitation (Doob, Sprott, Marinos, & Varma, 1998; Moon, Sundt, Cullen, & Wright, 2000; Sprott, 1998). Varma (2006) used experimental conditions split into two categories: those that varied descriptions of maturity and a control condition where no additional information was given to test the hypothesis that more information about an individual would lead to a more lenient sentence preference. Results showed that there was no significant effect of the experimental manipulation of descriptions of maturity on sentence preference. Rather, participants responded differently based on whether they had been given any additional information or not. As hypothesised, those who were not given any additional information were more likely to recommend prison, whereas there was no relationship between the level of reported maturity of the offender and the punitiveness/leniency of participants. These results suggest that the specific content of information given to the public does not significantly affect opinion but the absence of any information tends to correspond with more punitive views. They form the basis of important considerations related to the power of the community in evaluating sentencing and policy making as well as support of youth offenders, suggesting that having access to less information leads the public to make harsher decisions with regard to sentencing and policy making. It also suggests a link between specific experience of crime and consequential perceptions of crime and punishment, as people who have been direct victims of crime inherently hold more information about the offenders than people who have not been victims.

A theory proposed to underlie this finding is that of crime salience, which can be described as the apparent or actual relevance of crime to an individual’s life (Frost, 2010). This can manifest in different ways, but is commonly associated with living in areas experiencing high crime rates, fear of crime, or personal victimisation (Costelloe, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2009). Out of these, the most consistent finding seems to be that victimisation shows no relationship with punitive stance on criminal justice. This is a very sparsely researched area with mixed findings showing support for (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher, 2002; Blumstein & Cohen, 1980; Rossi & Berk, 1997; Stinchcombe et al., 1980) and against (Dull & Wint, 1997; Sprott & Doob, 1997) this proposed relationship. The underlying mechanism is proposed to be an indirect effect between victimisation and punitive attitudes mediated by emotionality about crime (Hartnagel & Templeton, 2012). Fear (Applegate et al., 2002; Costelloe et al., 2009) and anger (Garland, 1990; Lerner, Goldber, & Tetlock, 1998) toward crime have been suggested as determinants of punitive attitudes despite mixed evidence in support of these. These emotional responses may manifest in punitive attitudes toward offenders as a means to protect themselves from threat of crime or a desire for revenge following feelings of anger at being victimised (Hartnagel & Templeton, 2012). As a result, criminal justice policy must address the rational concerns of the general public as well as these underlying emotional responses to crime as felt by certain victims (Freiberg, 2001).

Therefore, the aim of the present research is to expand our understanding of existing attitudes of the New Zealand public toward youth offenders. It will focus specifically on comparing the views of those who have had personal experience of victimisation from youth offenders and those who have not, on what could be improved in managing youth offending in New Zealand, a line of research which to our knowledge has never been conducted in New Zealand previously.

Focusing on victims has the potential to gain insights from those most affected by crime regarding how they feel about the criminal justice system, in the hope that it will inform further research into the variables implicated in punitive or lenient opinions about offenders. It narrows down the sample to a group of individuals with similar exposure to, and experience of, crime with the underlying assumption that this group will have roughly similar responses in what should be done to manage youth offending. Comparing this group with those who may not have had the same experience provides an accurate view of the position of the New Zealand public on what can be done to manage youth offending based on their exposure to youth crime.

Method

Procedure and Participants

The present study is part of a larger research project consisting of quantitative and qualitative data gathered via a survey. A sample of 5,000 participants was randomly selected from the electoral roll and invited to complete either an online (created using the Survey Monkey tool linked to a website specifically for the study) or paper copy of the survey. In total, 832 individuals responded to the invitation to participate in the survey (male = 41.9%, female = 58.1%). New Zealand Europeans made up 87.7% of the sample followed by Māori¹ (7.0%), Chinese (1.74%), Samoan (0.9%), Indian (0.6%), Cook Island Maori (0.1%), Tongan (0.1%), Niuean (0.1%), and Other (7.8%).

The present study used a subset of these data (n = 469), focusing only on those participants who had personally been a victim of an offence against their person or someone in their immediate family (n = 167, 54% female, 46% male) and those who had not been victimised at all (n = 302, 64% female, 36% male). The comparison between victims and non-victims would also investigate the hypothesised link between being a victim and holding more punitive views. The study took into account crimes such as murder, manslaughter, physical and sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery. The average age of the victims was 51.6 years and the average age of the non-victims was 57.3 years. The modal age bracket of the victims group was 50 to 59 and 70 to 79 in the non-victim group. Out of these 469 participants, 349 provided a qualitative response of whom 39% were victims and 61% were non-victims. The open-ended questions from which the results were obtained asked participants to write as much as they wanted on (a) what is working well in how New Zealand deals with youth offenders and (b) what could be improved in the way New Zealand deals with youth offenders.

Data Analysis

For the means of this study, only the qualitative data from the open-ended responses to the survey were analysed. A qualitative approach was used to account for the complexity of public attitudes and opinions toward crime and punishment, providing a more nuanced and rich conceptualisation of participants’ responses. Responses were analysed flexibly using a theoretical thematic analysis approach described by Braun and Clarke (2006). A top-down approach was used as coding was done with a specific research question in mind and was driven by the researcher’s interest in the area. Themes were also identified primarily at the semantic level, not looking beyond what the respondent said. However, in a few cases, latent meanings of responses had to be inferred based on what was said as it was either vague or suggestive of underlying ideas that were not explicit in their response.

Responses were entered into a spreadsheet and re-read several times. An initial coding system was developed using a random subset of the data that was coded according to the main type of response the participant had suggested. These ideas were grouped according to similarity that resulted in five groups of related ideas and therefore five themes. These themes were then used to code the remaining set of the data being revised and expanded along the way to accurately capture participants’ responses. Consistency checks were conducted throughout the coding process (Thomas, 2004) with independent coders reviewing existing codes and discussing atypical responses that did not obviously fit within a specific theme. The responses on which coders did not agree were re-analysed until a consensus was reached. Once this was achieved the specific content of each theme was then identified, defined, and named.

Results

The data were categorised into five themes that captured the main emphases of participants’ responses on ways to improve how the New Zealand justice system deals with youth offenders. Systemic approaches were the most common with 39% of the total responses followed by rehabilitation (34%), punitive approaches (29%), preventive measures (16%), and restorative justice (13%). These percentages represent those responses that included statements that endorsed an aspect of that theme. These statements did not have to exclusively express only one theme to be included within that category. It is important to note that not all individuals’ responses fell under just one theme; some responses expressed views that showed support for two or more of the above themes and were included in the tally of all the themes it expressed. The specific combinations and permutations of these mixed opinions will be addressed in the following. Quotes of certain responses will be given to help illustrate the themes.

Address Systemic Factors

The theme of systemic approaches to dealing with offenders was the most common across the dataset, being mentioned by 39% of the sample and had the same distribution between victims and non-victims. This theme included statements suggesting that broader societal factors be addressed to curb the development of young people’s offending behaviour. Participants suggested issues with government policy, schooling, parenting, poverty, and other environmental factors such as easy access to alcohol and drugs as all being factors that make certain youth more vulnerable and, if these were addressed, it would go a long way to deter young people from offending. There was also a suggestion to adopt a more culturally sensitive approach with a call to “realise that we must deal with NZ with a society of youth who are bi-cultural, recognise these programmes when dealing with offending youth” for example. The data also included general statements encompassing all of the above such as this individual who stated,

Dealing with offenders is always the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Government policies should focus more strongly on creating improved life opportunities for children, better access to basic necessities, reduce causes of offending (poverty, cultural issues, substance abuse, domestic violence) better access to quality education, more equitable distribution of resources.

Of these, particular emphasis was placed on parenting and family factors as well as their interactions with particular parts of their environment such as school and antisocial peer groups:

They didn’t become youth offenders overnight. Know the signs, react early even if it means involving Youth and Family. Listen to teachers etc. regarding youth/very young with serious issues or family/environment issues.

Rehabilitation Should Be a Priority

Rehabilitation was also a strong theme mentioned by 34% of the sample. Of those who expressed support for rehabilitation, 40% were victims and 60% were non-victims. General statements in support of rehabilitation included ones such as:

Politicians appeal to popular sentiment of locking up youth offenders and throw away the key but this has been proven to increase re-offending rates. Politicians should dispose of their infatuation of the US model and focus more on rehabilitation, like Europe (Scandinavia).

Participants described rehabilitation as involving both the individual and his or her family or wider community; for example, one participant described rehabilitation as “a strategy which needs to look at sociological and psychological models relevant to the problem of youth offending and an analysis on individual cases.” Specific individual interventions that were suggested included alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, individual counselling to boost motivation, self-esteem and prosocial goal-setting as well as ensuring basic literacy and numeracy was achieved to find employment. Participants also called for a cultural focus as well as family involvement to provide youth offenders with support systems to prevent reoffending and live prosocial lives:

We need to stop demonising our young people and treating them like we’re afraid of them. . . . We are increasingly “writing off” certain sections of the community, be that down to race, class or location, and accepting that they will achieve less in life, offend, or that they deserve less opportunities. This means that young offenders who fit into these demographics are not given the chance to rehabilitate themselves and achieve everything they could in life.

More Punitive Measures Are Required

Responses suggesting more punitive measures as a means of better dealing with youth offenders were mentioned by 29% of the sample. Non-victims were over-represented with 64% of those who expressed punitive opinions being non-victims and 36% being victims. These responses included support of harsher penalties such as boot camps, military training due to lack of respect and discipline. There was also a call for harsher sentencing especially for repeat offenders with one respondent suggesting, “Put them in prison and throw the key away”:

There should be stricter or heavier punishments for the offenders. I think offenders are not punished enough. There seems to be some laxity with law and stop giving them comfortable prison life—remember they should be punished for them to learn.

There were also general statements calling for an overall increase in harshness of punishment and a tougher stand on crime as opposed to giving specific suggestions, for example, calling for “a bit more than the slap on the wrists” and sentiments such as “if they do the crime they should do the time.” Some also suggested changes to policy in terms of lowering the age of criminal responsibility and treating all crime the same, regardless of the offender’s age:

Have a very visual distinction in terms of punishment for youth or adult and then expose them to an experience of what that adult punishment would be—e.g. 2 weeks in prison if they would otherwise be given home detention.

Youth Offending Should Be Prevented in the First Place

Prevention was suggested by 16% of the sample. Victims were greatly over-represented in their support for this with 66% of the responses in support of preventive measures coming from this group compared with 34% from the non-victim group. There was a clear distinction between responses categorised into this theme as opposed to the systemic approach theme as these explicitly suggested intervention before offending began, exemplified by general responses such as, “There needs to be more intervention into dysfunctional families at an early stage, before offending starts.” These responses were focused around addressing the underlying causes of offending behaviour to prevent young people from engaging in crime in the first place. This included suggestions around stricter supervision from teachers and insuring children are engaged in school with responses such as

I believe prevention is better than cure, perhaps providing opportunities earlier in schools to identify potential offenders and have programmes available that would give them skills to use in the workforce/community earlier so they can become confident when they leave school or may feel more inclined to stay at school.

Respondents also suggested dysfunctional interactions or influences in families and peer groups as an underlying cause of offending and reinforced the importance of parents taking responsibility in responses such as

There was not one mention of responsibility of upbringing and parenting in your survey. Parents also should have responsibility to society. Good parenting leads to good children.

Victims Should Receive Restoration

The theme of restorative justice was the least common theme, mentioned by 13% of the sample. Of these 67% were non-victims and 33% were victims. This suggests that like support for punitive measures, non-victims were over-represented in support for restorative justice. Responses within this theme included suggestions focused on the offenders redressing the harm they had done to victims and their community and being held accountable for their offending. Responses such as the following put victims’ rights at the heart of the matter:

I think youth offending evolves out of lack of respect for the victims, the offenders themselves and the community they live in. There needs to be consequences for their bad behaviour and they need to understand the hurt that behaviour has caused, hence my support for restorative justice. Youth crime should have a higher position of importance over adult crime in that it prevents a life of crime developing.

Specific suggestions included community service, repayment of the value of stolen goods, and developing an understanding of the practical or financial cost their actions have had on their victims. This is exemplified by this participant’s response:

Offenders need to learn the value of work and how much time and effort it takes to buy possessions. If offenders were made to physically work a 40 hr week, digging a garden, trim hedges, pick up stones for 3 months or more, maybe they would realise how hard it is for those whom they have damaged property. Maybe they would be too tired at night after a good day’s work to go out and steal damage property or harm others.

Interactions Between the Themes

The themes above represent distinct types of opinions that were suggested across the participant pool. However, it was not the case that each individual only reported a single idea. In the victims group, 44% of participants’ responses fell under more than one theme whereas in the non-victims group, 32% fell under more than one theme. Common groupings of themes included combinations of prevention and systemic themes, systemic and rehabilitation themes as well as the contrasting rehabilitation and punitive themes with sentiments urging for “punishment to come from a benevolent system”:

These youth show up very early at primary school. Preventative intervention is vital at that point. Teachers do not have the tools or support to tackle the problem so qualified personnel are needed. Also if training in parenting was given to many of these young people, teaching them how to discipline their children, perhaps many of these young offenders wouldn’t develop. Dealing with them as teenagers is definitely 10 years too late to make a difference. Early intervention is the key.

These combinations were often trying to convey that no two offenders are the same and what may work for one may not work for another: “Depends on the crime, people are individuals so what suits one will not suit another. All these things you have suggested can help the right person and destroy another.” They also suggested that merely one approach was too simplistic to deal with the complex situations underlying a youth’s offending behaviour. This is exemplified through responses urging a wide-ranging and multi-facetted approach to dealing with youth offending such as this respondent who suggested,

Programmes that show young people that they come from a long line of chiefs and that each and every one of them were born to do great things. Programmes that help youth offenders to identify where they came from, how precious they are, and the value they have to contribute to their wider family (community or society). Programmes that help youth offenders to build and strengthen their relationships with their families and prosocial networks.

Table 1.

Public Opinion Themes and Frequency.

Public opinion themes	n = 456
Address systemic and environmental factors	135
Rehabilitation should be a priority	118
More punitive measures are required	101
Youth offending should be prevented in the first place	56
Victims should receive restoration	46

Discussion

As presented above, the theme of addressing systemic and environmental factors was the most common across the participant pool followed by support for rehabilitation, punitive measures, prevention, and restorative justice, respectively. The distribution of victims and non-victims across these groups was more or less reflective of the overall distribution throughout the sample with the exception of punitive measures and restorative justice where non-victims were over-represented and preventive measures where victims were over-represented. Interestingly, there were also a substantial number of responses that fell under more than one theme; primarily showing support for combinations of rehabilitation and punishment or systemic and rehabilitation.

General findings of support for rehabilitation being among the most common themes are consistent with results of previous research (Allen, 2002; Piquero & Steinberg, 2010) as well as recent New Zealand public opinion polls. The finding of non-victims being over-represented in the expression of more punitive opinions regarding youth offenders is consistent with research on crime salience. It provides support for the studies showing that those who had been victimised showed less punitive attitudes (Applegate et al., 2002; Blumstein & Cohen, 1980; Roberts, 2002; Rossi & Berk, 1997). It is important to be aware of the limited amount of research in this area. Empirical qualitative research on public opinions toward crime is extremely rare and opinions toward youth justice and youth offenders even more so.

The interactions between the themes were particularly interesting as they showed that public attitudes were often more complex than public opinion polls and surveys allowed for. These respondents maintained that a multi-facetted approach was the best way to improve the way in which criminal justice system deals with youth offenders. This acknowledges the complexity of each case and provided sentiments that called for interventions that matched an offender’s complex needs as well as those of the victims. They recognised that not only are youth different from adults but that each youth is different and what may work for one might not for another.

As stated previously, the most common suggestion across the data was to address the vast number of systemic and environmental factors that affect youth developing antisocial behaviour. Respondents suggested that if these were addressed, it would prevent youth going on to offend in the first place or prevent minor offences from escalating into a life of crime in adulthood. In the academic literature, these systemic factors are often seen as “risk factors” that make a young person more susceptible to offending behaviour and include some of the best targets for interventions (Andrews & Bonta, 1998).

Education Factors

This was one of the most common ideas within the theme of systemic and environmental factors, suggesting that participants believed a lack of academic achievement and engagement in school (due to factors specific to the individual as well as inadequate support for schools and teachers) was the underlying cause of youth developing offending behaviour. This is a sentiment that is reflected in the literature that shows that educational success does indeed decrease the likelihood of juvenile delinquency (Foley, 2001). School-based interventions or changes to education with these effects in mind would go a long way to mitigate levels of risk. These changes could potentially involve better supervision and support of children who show lower academic ability or engagement, as well as keeping children in school as opposed to expulsions as a result of problem behaviour. School itself serves rehabilitative purposes by not only providing formal qualifications, but also equipping young people with academic, social, and decision-making skills.

Family Factors

Respondents suggested that another root of the problem lay at the familial level with lack of supervision and appropriate discipline, while also alluding to family violence prevalence as unacceptable. Developmental psychology perspectives reinforce these ideas by warning of the negative effects of inconsistent discipline and disengaged parenting. Research has shown that disengaged parent–child relationships maintain conduct problems (Behan & Carr, 2000; Brosnan & Carr, 2000) due to a lack of boundaries. This allows children more freedom to form deviant peer groups and engage in antisocial activity without any consequences. Inconsistent discipline also prolongs problem behaviour as the rules pertaining to what is and is not acceptable are vague. Unfortunately, it can also be the case that discipline is delivered using violence (Behan & Carr, 2000; Brosnan & Carr, 2000). The negative effects of this are well documented as impacting on children’s neurological, emotional, and behavioural development as well as modelling of violence shown toward them (Behan & Carr, 2000; Brosnan & Carr, 2000). These children are at a higher risk to go on to have an earlier mean age at first offence and higher frequency of offences (Widom, 1989). Although not an inevitable transition into perpetrating violence themselves, research has shown that approximately 30% of those who have been abused go on to offend into adolescence and adulthood, which is cause for considerable concern (Widom, 1989).

Community Factors

In referring to community factors underlying youth offending, respondents focused primarily on substance abuse, poverty, and cultural issues. The link between substance abuse and juvenile criminality has been well documented (Bennett, Holloway, & Farrington, 2008) with prevalence estimated to range from 25% to 67% across studies in justice system settings (Johnson et al., 2004; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, & Mericle, 2002). In a New Zealand population, Youth Court Judge John Walker estimates that 80% of the young people that appear in court have a substance abuse dependency (Becroft, 2009a). The Christchurch Youth Drug Court (YDC) is an example of a service targeted at young offenders appearing at the youth court who have substance abuse linked to their offending. It involves a more holistic approach with multi-agency input and has proven to be effective with preliminary results showing 73% of participants having a lowered rate of offending a year after YDC. However, this was only from a sample of 30, so is by no means a conclusive result. Respondents also alluded to culture as being a key community factor that affects a young person’s sense of belonging and identity. They expressed opinions that called for a greater emphasis on supporting Māori youth who are greatly over-represented in youth crime. Māori youth offenders make up around 50% of all of New Zealand’s youth offenders with certain courts showing figures as high as 80% to 90% (Becroft, 2005). Research shows that if this systemic factor is to be targeted effectively, interventions need to adopt a holistic approach that is adapted to the unique needs of each whanau (family) and instil a sense of pride in their culture by providing cultural education about their ancestry (Maxwell & Morris, 1999).

The Efficacy of Youth Offender Rehabilitation Strategies

There is an increasing number of studies advocating for the use of evidenced-based intervention strategies in treating youth offenders. These programs are ideally community based and involve social learning and cognitive behavioural techniques. Scott (2008) reviewed the principles of intervention that contributed the most to successful outcomes that are closely linked to systemic and environmental factors underlying the offending behaviour. Primarily, successful interventions hinge on the engagement of the family. As recognised in the data, these families are more likely to be in a disadvantaged position and may not have had positive interactions with professional agencies. This is implicated in the high drop-out rates of this group from treatment, being as high as 60% (Kazdin, 1996). With this in mind, forming a therapeutic alliance with the entire family as opposed to just the individual youth is vital. This not only involves engendering an environment of understanding during assessment and treatment but also practical techniques such as helping with transportation, child care, and session times more convenient for the family (Scott, 2008). These and other related factors have been shown to account for 15% of the variance in outcome (Shirk & Karver, 2003). Closely linked to this is the idea that youth should be treated in their most natural environment, in the community as opposed to in-patient or lock-up facilities (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). Intervention strategies should also be centred on developing strengths and scholastic learning. This involves helping the youth develop constructive patterns of behaviour as opposed to focusing on avoiding destructive behaviours (Scott, 2008). For example, more time spent engaging in prosocial activities such as sports is time spent away from situations were offending might occur. In general, interventions should aim to achieve more than a reduction of offending behaviour; skills on how to lead a prosocial life need to be taught if behaviour change is to be sustained following conclusion of treatment.

In terms of specific treatment approaches, there are a few that have been proven to be effective in reducing criminal behaviour in adolescents. These include functional family therapy that was one of the first family-based interventions to show positive results with youth offenders (Alexander & Parsons, 1973; Alexander, Pugh, Parsons, & Sexton, 2000) and multi-systemic therapy (MST) that is currently considered the “gold standard” for youth offender treatment, with a number of controlled studies attesting to its efficacy (Borduin, Schaeffer, & Heiblum, 2009; Curtis, Ronan, & Borduin, 2004; Schaeffer & Borduin, 2005). Given the well-established evidence that treatment works, the task of the next generation of research on rehabilitation is to explore what kind of offenders will benefit the most and under which conditions is treatment most likely to be successful (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007).

Victim–Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice

Restorative justice, however uncommon in sentiments across the data, is an approach that has gained a lot of traction with the New Zealand criminal justice system. The latest Ministry of Justice statistics showed that 74% of victims who engaged in restorative justice processes “felt better” and 80% recommended this process (Ministry of Justice, 2014). This was not reflected in responses to the question of interest in our data of “what could be improved in dealing with youth offenders?” however. It is impossible to conclude whether this result is an indication that the public do not see this as particularly important, that it is something that is already being done well and does not need improving, or that they are unaware of this process involves. In either case, restorative processes (in the form of voluntary conferences between victims and offenders) have proven to have some effectiveness in the latest reoffending rates. Results of these outcome studies show that those who were part of conferences committed 23% fewer offences and had a 12% lower rate of reoffending over 12 months in comparison with offenders who did not take part (Ministry of Justice, 2014). Restorative justice is also formally recognised in the Sentencing, Parole and Victims’ Rights Acts 2002 and the Corrections Act 2004 that encourage its use whenever appropriate, thus making it an important part of criminal justice responses to youth offenders in New Zealand. However, given the apparent 1-year drop-off in desistance following restorative justice, more research is required in this area to explore its long-term effects on recidivism and its effects on the seriousness of offending as opposed to solely measuring imprisonment rates.

The Role of Punishment When Dealing With Youth Offenders

There is a growing body of evidence suggesting the prison is an inadequate solution for youth offenders, having more damaging than correctional effects (Lambie & Randell, 2013). There are a number of reasons why this might be the case; first, youth offenders are a very different population compared with their adult counterparts. It is now well known that juveniles do not share the same developmental level of maturity as adults (Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, & Banich, 2009). Adolescents are often under-developed in their risk perception, self-regulation, social information, and impulsivity, which leaves youth offenders more vulnerable to provocation, peer influence, and stressful situations (Steinberg & Scott, 2003). This is of special concern when incarcerated with adults where they are at a higher risk of victimisation, leading to negative outcomes in terms of mental (Domalanta, Risser, Roberts, & Risser, 2003) and physical health (Griel & Loeb, 2009) concerns as well as risk of suicide (Kiriakidis, 2008). Prison also impacts on developmental processes of autonomy and social integration (Lambie & Randell, 2013). Young people in prisons are unable to develop in prosocial ways due to the restrictive environment as well as limited opportunities for prosocial interaction (Dmitrieva, Monahan, Cauffman, & Steinberg, 2012). This not only prevents normal social and psychological development but can also change its trajectory toward negative consequences. Survival in a prison requires an acculturation to an environment that contains other more skilled and experienced criminals. This is a counterproductive function of prison as it goes against the belief that prisons separate offenders from their antisocial influences in the community when the opposite holds true; offenders are exposed to more antisocial influences in prison (Little, 2006). Increased exposure to violence and modelling of this antisocial behaviour (Hunter, 2004; Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, & Matza, 2001) results in reintegration of youth offenders who are at a higher level of risk than when they were incarcerated, with prisons inadvertently serving the purpose of providing an education in criminal proficiency.

Research has also shown that a majority of young people do not continue their delinquent behaviour if a natural psychological maturation process is navigated successfully (Elliot, 1994; Stouthamer-Loeber, Wei, Loeber, & Masten, 2004). Even the most serious offenders do not inevitably continue into adulthood (Mulvey, 2011). Incarceration may however disrupt normal psychological development by limiting the natural reestablishment of a prosocial lifestyle (Lambie & Randell, 2013). Lane, Lanza-Kaduce, Frazier, and Bishop (2002), for example, showed that youth who were imprisoned felt a sense of loss of aspirations for the future following release; they also found that emotions surrounding this experience increased feelings of resentment and hostility that lead to continued antisocial behaviour on release.

There was also a common suggestion across the responses that endorsed punitive views to introduce more boot camps as an early intervention strategy. These models are still popular in the United States after being promoted by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention following pilot studies. However, a number of recent reviews have suggested that these are ineffective (Benda, 2005; Stinchcomb, 2005; Tyler, Darville, & Stalnaker, 2001). Early studies in New Zealand have also shown that even when offenders showed increased levels of compliance, following the intervention results was short lived: 50% reconvicted within a year and 70% within 3 years (Department of Justice, 1971). This is reinforced by more recent research suggesting that military-style boot camps have no positive impact on youth offenders and at times can even result in an increased rate of reoffending (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). Due to the boot camp environment and its removal of decision-making opportunities, youth re-entering society were unable to cope with the demands of living independently by making their own decisions and being self-disciplined (Lambie & Randell, 2013).

Limitations

The key limitations of the current study are those that are intrinsic to qualitative research, specifically, the limited interpretive power beyond a description of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Differences in responses between victims and non-victims cannot be expressed with statistical significance nor can we be certain that any differences are due to being a victim or non-victim per se. However, the methodology used was the most appropriate to answer the research question and succeeded in capturing the complexities and nuances of public opinion albeit in only a descriptive sense.

There was also the potential of a sampling bias whereby respondents self-selected to take part in the survey. This has implications in the generalisability of the sample as those who chose to respond may only represent a subset of the population who had qualitatively different opinions on the youth justice system from those who did not respond.

Current Youth Justice Processes and Implications of Research

At present, youth offending and youth justice in New Zealand is governed by the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 that involves two separate processes for 10- to 13-year-olds and 14- to 16-year-olds. These systems are separated due to young people’s vulnerability, lack of psychological maturity, and the idea that youth should not be dealt with in the same way adult populations are. Although the age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand starts at 10 years, this is only limited to charges of murder and manslaughter, and general principles state criminal procedures should not proceed if there is an alternative way of dealing with the issue. In this way, both processes are diversion focused and emphasise accountability and rehabilitation. New Zealand’s approach has received international praise for its innovative approach toward youth offenders. However, the one flaw that has come under scrutiny from the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and much of the international community is not including 17-year-olds in this youth system. This is largely out of line with most of the Western world that defines a child as anyone under the age of 18. Thus, given the impressive benefits of the diversionary focus of the New Zealand youth justice system, 17-year-old youth would be better served if they were included in this system.

Research of this kind on public attitudes toward crime and punishment in New Zealand is very rare. To date, there is no research focusing solely on attitudes toward youth offending in New Zealand and how the criminal justice system is dealing with it. International research is useful but cannot reliably be generalised to the New Zealand population due to a different sample and different legislation, which would likely be linked to different attitudes and opinions. This exploration of attitudes toward youth offending and responses in support for or opposition to rehabilitative or punitive approaches is particularly important as it has the potential to inform the ways policy makers endorse, justify, and put legislature into practice by exerting pressure similar to the 1999 referendum. Sentiments of support for pre-emptive interventions targeted at systemic and environmental factors as well as a rehabilitative approach are in line with current goals of the criminal justice system and where their focus lies.

Public attitudes that are generally in favour of systemic and rehabilitative approaches have the potential to challenge policy makers to implement policies that are more rehabilitation- and prevention-focused (Piquero, Cullen, Unnever, Piquero, & Gordon, 2010) or at least discourage maintaining a punitive stance. It is important that government policy also complements the goals of the youth justice system mentioned above. Delivering a strong united approach to youth offending at government and community service levels optimizes the opportunity to make meaningful changes with significant results. These preventive measures may then flow on to reduce the number of youth offenders progressing into the adult criminal justice system with the ultimate goal of a general reduction in youth crime and imprisonment (Becroft, 2009b). Public support is especially important in this sense, as it enables proactive and positive responses to youth crime, such as a shift toward community-based sentencing, where community support manifests in encouraging hope and a fulfilment of potential for youth offenders to be able to change and live prosocial lives.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Alexander

Parsons

B. V.

(1973). Short-term behavioural intervention with delinquent families: Impact on family process and recidivism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 219-225.

Alexander

Pugh

Parsons

Sexton

T. L.

(2000). Functional family therapy. Boulder: Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado.

Allen

(2002). “There must be some way of dealing with kids”: Young offenders, public attitudes and policy change. Youth Justice, 2, 3-13.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(1998). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Applegate

B. K.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

(1997). Public support for correctional treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal, 77, 237-258.

Applegate

B. K.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

(2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89-100.

Becroft

J. A.

(2005, November). Māori youth offending. Paper presented at the New Zealand Police Management Development Conference, Nelson, New Zealand.

Becroft

J. A.

(2009a, November). Drug Law and the New Zealand Youth Court. Presented at the International Drug Symposium, Healthy Drug Law, Wellington, NZ.

Becroft

J. A.

(2009b). How to turn a child offender into an adult Criminal—In 10 easy steps. New Zealand: Ministry of Justice, Wellington.

10.

Behan

Carr

(2000). Oppositional defiant disorder. In Carr

(Ed.), What works with children and adolescents? A critical review of psychological interventions with children adolescent s and their families (pp. 102-130). London, England: Routledge.

11.

Benda

B. B.

(2005). Introduction. Boot camps revisited: Issues problems, prospects. In Benda

B. B.

Pallone

N. J.

(Eds.), Rehabilitation issues, problems and prospects in boot camp (pp. 1-25). New York, NY: Haworth Press.

12.

Bennett

Holloway

Farrington

(2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 107-118.

13.

Blumstein

Cohen

(1980). Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public’s view. Law & Society Review, 223-261.

14.

Borduin

C. M.

Schaeffer

C. M.

Heiblum

(2009). A randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: Effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 26-37.

15.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

16.

Brosnan

Carr

(2000). Adolescent conduct problems. In Carr

(Ed.), What works with children and adolescents? A critical review of psychological interventions with children adolescent s and their families (pp. 131-154). London, England: Routledge.

17.

Christie

(1993). Crime control as industry. London, England: Routledge.

18.

Costelloe

M. T.

Chiricos

Gertz

(2009). Punitive attitudes toward criminals exploring the relevance of crime salience and economic insecurity. Punishment & Society, 11, 25-49.

19.

Covell

Howe

R. B.

(1996). Public attitudes and juvenile justice in Canada. The International Journal of Children s Rights, 4, 345-355.

20.

Curtis

N. M.

Ronan

K. R.

Borduin

C. M.

(2004). Multisystemic treatment. A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 411-419.

21.

Department of Justice. (1971). Waipata: A study of trainees in open borstal institutions. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

22.

Dmitrieva

Monahan

K. C.

Cauffman

Steinberg

(2012). Arrested development: The effects of incarceration on the development of psychosocial maturity. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 1073-1090.

23.

Domalanta

D. D.

Risser

W. L.

Roberts

R. E.

Risser

J. M. H.

(2003). Prevalence of depression and other psychiatric disorders among incarcerated youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 477-484.

24.

Doob

A. N.

Roberts

J. V.

(1983). Analysis of the public’s view of sentencing. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of Justice.

25.

Doob

A. N.

Sprott

J. B.

Marinos

Varma

K. N.

(1998). An exploration of Ontario residents’ views of crime and the criminal justice system. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Centre of Criminology.

26.

Dull

R. T.

Wint

A. V.

(1997). Criminal victimization and its effect on fear of crime and justice attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 748-758.

27.

Elliot

D. S.

(1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset developmental course and termination—The American Society of Criminology 1993 presidential address. Criminology, 32, 1-21.

28.

Foley

R. M.

(2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youths and correctional education programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 9, 248-259.

29.

Freiberg

(2001). Affective versus effective justice. Punishment & Society, 3, 265-278.

30.

Frost

N. A.

(2010). Beyond public opinion polls: Punitive public sentiment & criminal justice policy. Sociology Compass, 4, 156-168.

31.

Garland

(1990). Punishment and modern society. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

32.

Ghetti

Redlich

A. D.

(2001). Reactions to youth crime: Perceptions of accountability and competency. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 33-52.

33.

Griel

I. C.

Loeb

S. J.

(2009). Health issues faced by adolescents incarcerated in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 5, 162-179.

34.

Hartnagel

T. F.

Templeton

L. J.

(2012). Emotions about crime and attitudes to punishment. Punishment & Society, 14, 452-474.

35.

Hough

Roberts

(1998). Attitudes to crime and punishment: Findings from the British Crime Survey. London, England: HMSO.

36.

Hunter

J. A.

(2004). Developmental pathways in youth sexual aggression and delinquency: Risk factors and mediators. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 233-242.

37.

Johnson

T. P.

Cho

Y. I.

Fendrich

Graf

Kelly-Wilson

Pickup

(2004). Treatment need and utilization among youth entering the juvenile corrections system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26, 117-128.

38.

Kazdin

A. E.

(1996). Dropping out of child therapy: Issues for research and implications for practice. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, 133-156.

39.

Kiriakidis

S. P.

(2008). Bullying and suicide attempts among adolescents kept in custody. Crisis, 29, 216-218.

40.

Kury

Ferdinand

(1999). Public opinion and punitivity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 373-392.

41.

Lambie

Randell

(2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 448-459.

42.

Lane

Lanza-Kaduce

Frazier

C. E.

Bishop

D. M.

(2002). Adult versus juvenile sanctions: Voices of incarcerated youths. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 431-455.

43.

Lerner

Goldber

Tetlock

(1998). Sober second though: The effects of accountability, anger and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563-574.

44.

Lipsey

M. W.

Cullen

F. T.

(2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. The Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297-320.

45.

Little

(2006). A social development model of incarceration on juvenile offenders’ social network support, exposure to antisocial peers, aggressive offending and psychological adjustment. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.

46.

Mattinson

Mirrlees-Black

Britain

(2000). Attitudes to crime and criminal justice: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey. London, England: Home Office.

47.

Maxwell

Morris

(1999). Understanding re-offending: Full report. Wellington, New Zealand: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington.

48.

Ministry of Justice. (2014). Reoffending analysis for restorative justice cases 2008-2011. New Zealand: Wellington.

49.

Moon

M. M.

Sundt

J. L.

Cullen

F. T.

Wright

J. P.

(2000). Is child saving dead? Public support for juvenile rehabilitation. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 38-60.

50.

Mulvey

E. R.

(2011). Highlights from pathways to desistance: A longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

51.

Piquero

A. R.

Cullen

F. T.

Unnever

J. D.

Piquero

N. L.

Gordon

J. A.

(2010). Never too late: Public optimism about juvenile rehabilitation. Punishment & Society, 12, 187-207.

52.

Piquero

A. R.

Steinberg

(2010). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1-6.

53.

Pratt

(2007). Penal populism. London, England: Routledge.

54.

Pratt

Clark

(2005). Penal populism in New Zealand. Punishment & Society, 7, 303-322.

55.

Roberts

J. V.

(1992). Public opinion, crime and criminal justice. In Crime and justice: A review of research (pp 495-542). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

56.

Roberts

J. V.

(2002). Public opinion and sentencing policy. In Rex

Tony

(Eds.), Reform and punishment: The future of sentencing (pp 18-40). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.

57.

Roberts

J. V.

Doob

A. N.

(1990). News media influences on public views of sentencing. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 451-468.

58.

Rossi

P. H.

Berk

R. A.

(1997). Just punishments: Federal guidelines and public views compared. Transaction Publishers, Hawthorne: New York.

59.

Russell

Morgan

(2001). Sentencing of domestic burglary (Sentencing Advisory Panel Research Report 1). London, England: Home Office.

60.

Schaeffer

C. M.

Borduin

C. M.

(2005). Long-term follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 445-453.

61.

Scott

(2008). An update on interventions for conduct disorder. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 14, 61-70.

62.

Shahinfar

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Matza

L. S.

(2001). The relation between exposure to violence and social information processing among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 136-141.

63.

Shirk

S. R.

Karver

(2003). Prediction of treatment outcome from relationship variables in child and adolescent therapy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 452-464.

64.

Sprott

J. B.

(1998). Understanding public opposition to a separate youth justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 44, 399-411.

65.

Sprott

J. B.

Doob

A. N.

(1997). Fear, victimization, and attitudes to sentencing, the courts, and the police. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 275-291.

66.

Steinberg

Cauffman

Woolard

Graham

Banich

(2009). Are adolescents less mature than adults? “Minors” access to abortion, the juvenile death penalty and the alleged APA “flip flop.” American Psychologist, 64, 583-594.

67.

Steinberg

Scott

E. S.

(2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58, 1009-1018.

68.

Stinchcomb

J. B.

(2005). From optimistic policies to pessimistic outcomes: Why won’t boot camps either succeed pragmatically or succumb politically? In rehabilitation issues, problems and prospects in boot camp (pp. 27-52). Haworth Press: Philadelphia.

69.

Stinchcombe

A. L.

Adams

Heimer

C. A.

Scheppele

K. L.

Smith

T. W.

Taylor

D. G.

(1980). Crime and punishment: Changing attitudes in America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

70.

Stouthamer-Loeber

Wei

Loeber

Masten

(2004). Desistance from persistent serious delinquency in the transition to adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 897-918.

71.

Teplin

L. A.

Abram

K. M.

McClelland

G. M.

Mericle

A. A.

(2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133-1143.

72.

Thakker

(2012). Public attitudes to sex offenders in New Zealand. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 149-163.

73.

Thomas

D. R.

(2004). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Auckland, New Zealand: School of Population Health, University of Auckland.

74.

Tufts

Roberts

J. V.

(2002). Sentencing juvenile offenders: Comparing public preferences and judicial practice. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 46-64.

75.

Tyler

Darville

Stalnaker

(2001). Juvenile boot camps. A descriptive analysis of program diversity and effectiveness. Social Science Journal, 38, 445-460.

76.

Varma

K. N.

(2006). Face-ing the offender: Examining public attitudes towards young offenders 1. Contemporary Justice Review, 9, 175-187.

77.

Widom

C. S.

(1989). Child abuse, neglect and adult behavior: Research design and findings on criminality, violence and child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 355-367.

78.

Withers

(2002). A speech from norm: Sensible sentencing trust. Retrieved from http://www.laworderrreferendum.org.nz/Norm.html

79.

Wood

Vikki

G. T.

(2004). Public perceptions of crime and punishment. In Adler

(ed.) Forensic Psychology, (pp. 16-36). Willian Publishing, Cullompton: UK.