THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN SINGAPORE: THE 1990S AND BEYOND
| Citation | (2000) 12 SAcLJ 345 |
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
Juvenile delinquency has been a growing problem in Singapore. From 1980 to 1990, the number of juveniles2 arrested in Singapore doubled3. Juvenile arrests continued to increase throughout the 1990s, from 1,205 arrests in 1990 to a peak of 2,574 in 1995, falling to 2,110 in 1996, rising to 2,147 in 1997 and 2,242 in 19984, before falling to 1,515 in 19995. This increase in juvenile crime came at a time when the overall crime rate was declining, from 2,226 per 100,000 resident population in 1988 to 1,701 per 100,000 in 19936.
Even after taking into account the increase in the number of young people in the juvenile age range, the number of juvenile arrests remains a statistic for concern. From 1990 to 1997 there was a 78.2% increase in juvenile arrests7. In rough contrast, there was a 23.1% increase in the age group 5—9 from 1990 to end June 1997 (from 205,100 to 252,400), a 5.6% increase in the age group 10—14 (from 197,600 to 208,600) and a 7.4% decrease in the age group 15—19 (from 220,400 to 204,000)8. The disparity is especially
stark considering that a majority of juvenile offenders are aged 14 to 159. The key age groups with which to compare the 78.2% increase in juvenile arrests from 1990 to 1997 are therefore the 10—14 age group for which there was only a 5.6% increase, and the 15—19 age group for which there was a 7.4% decrease. With the number of people aged 7 to 15 years expected to increase by 16% from 400,840 in 1998 to 465,000 in 2005, even if the juvenile crime rate remains constant, the number of juvenile offenders can be expected to increase in the coming years10.
This article examines the reforms made in Singapore in the 1990s in response to the increase in juvenile delinquency and evaluates their effectiveness in reducing juvenile delinquency11. It begins by exploring the juvenile justice reforms in Singapore, where a transition was made from a model of general deterrence to that of restorative justice12. It argues that there is a need to move beyond reforms focusing mainly on the juvenile justice system, to a wider embracement of an approach that involves the prevention of juvenile delinquency at its roots. It traces the initial steps taken towards prevention in Singapore, and outlines the possible directions for a more comprehensive strategy of prevention.
At the front of the Supreme Court Building of Singapore is a tympanum sculpture by the Italian Cavalori Rudolfo Nolli of the figure of Justice holding high the Scales of Justice in her right hand. The image of the Scales aptly captures the character of juvenile justice reforms in Singapore in the 1990s, a balancing of the punishment and welfare of the juvenile offender, as the juvenile justice system made its way from its traditional reliance on the force of general deterrence to a model of restorative justice.
The tension experienced in the reforms of the 1990s, whilst new to Singapore, has been experienced on a much broader geographical as well as historical scale. Just as the Scales of Justice is a familiar image to other jurisdictions such as those of the United Kingdom, the United States
and Australia, the tension between punishment and welfare of the juvenile offender is a familiar one to their juvenile justice systems. The history of juvenile justice in these countries will be briefly surveyed, to delineate the character of this tension, as well as to provide a wider context from which to view the recent juvenile justice reforms in Singapore.
The United Kingdom entered the twentieth century leaning overwhelmingly towards the punishment of juveniles, with juveniles being treated as adults at both trial and disposition stages13. The change in focus to the welfare of the juvenile offender began with the introduction of the Children Act of 1908. Herbert Samuel when introducing the Children Bill in Parliament stated that it was founded on three principles. First, juvenile offenders should be kept separate from adult criminals. Second, parents should be made more responsible for the wrongdoing of their children. Third, the imprisonment of juveniles should be abolished.
The concern for the welfare of the juvenile continued with the enactment of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The Act dictated that magistrates were to have regard to ‘the welfare of the child’. This marked a departure from ideas of ‘criminal justice’, ‘crime control’ and full criminal responsibility for behaviour towards a focus on welfare and treatment to suit the needs of each individual child.
By the end of the 1930s however, there was a revived emphasis on punishment, although supporters of a more punitive approach were generally frustrated in their attempt to turn back the tide. During the war and immediate post-war years, despite the emergence of a welfare perspective14, there was renewed clamour for a punitive approach. In 1950, a special punishment ‘Borstal’15 was established and two years later harsher regimes were recommended throughout the Borstal system.
In 1964, some months before the Labour Party came to power16, the Longford Report, a product of a Labour Party Study Group was released. It took the view that delinquents are to some extent a product of the society in which they live and of the deficiencies in its provision for them. It expressed the aim of taking juveniles out of the criminal justice system
and to treat their problems in a family setting through the establishment of family advice centres, a family service, and, for a minority, a family court. The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 was subsequently passed to curtail magistrates’ power to use custodial sentences and to encourage de-institutionalisation.
The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 was however never fully implemented. Like many Acts of Parliament, certain sections of it were drafted so as to be implemented at a future date. A Conservative government replaced the Labour Party in 1970 and they made clear that they would not implement the Act fully17. When the Labour Party was re-elected in 1974, it lacked the political strength to implement the Act in full. Thus new welfare measures were added on to, but did not replace, the old punitive ones. Two further trends of the 1970s, an increase in the use of punitive dispositions generally and of custodial dispositions in particular and a decline in the use of welfare orientated dispositions, set the stage for the change in tide of the 1980s.
In the 1980s, there was an explicit revival of the punitive approach. The Conservative Party which came into power in 1979 under Margaret Thatcher listed greater respect for ‘law and order’ as one of the six steps essential for Britain’s recovery. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 set this change of perspective in motion, and represented a move away from treatment to notions of punishment and individual and parental responsibility, emphasising the gravity of the offence instead of the juvenile’s needs.
In 1997, the Labour Party swept into power as the new Labour. Breaking with its past, it jettisoned its support for unions, higher taxes and the welfare state. This ideological shift flowed into its juvenile justice reforms. In the White Paper No More Excuses — A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales and the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, the approach taken in the Longford Report of 1964 was abandoned and punishment and personal accountability were emphasised, values that until then had belonged to the Conservative platform. Noting the proposed abolishment of the presumption of doli incapax18 and the introduction of
a new custodial sentence in the detention and training order, Nicola Padfield wrote that the ‘language of old fashioned retributivism which is to be found in the White Paper, condemning the excuse culture in the youth justice system, must not be used to cloud the utilitarian message of the proposed protocol. The dominant political message seems to put the emphasis on tough penalties, not on helping young offenders tackle problems or on the social context of offending19’. The juvenile justice system in the United Kingdom therefore ended the twentieth century the way it began it, emphasising the punishment of the juvenile offender over his welfare.
A short survey of the history of juvenile justice in the United States reveals similar tensions between punishment of the juvenile offender and concern for his welfare20. A key element of the first juvenile court established in Illinois by the Juvenile Court Act of 1899 was the focus on the welfare of the juvenile. By 1925, all but two states had established juvenile courts. Rather than merely punishing the delinquents for their crimes, the juvenile courts sought to turn the delinquents into productive citizens through treatment. It was a model of juvenile justice that flourished for half the century.
By the 1950s and 1960s, public confidence in the ability of the juvenile court to succeed in rehabilitating juvenile delinquents began to wane. Although this led to diversion, community-based programs and deinstitutionalisation in the 1970s, the focus throughout remained the welfare of the juvenile.
In the 1980s, the scale began to tip in favour of the ‘law and order’ approach. Public perception that serious juvenile crime was increasing and that the system was too lenient on offenders led many states to respond by passing more punitive laws and handling more classes of juvenile offenders as adult criminals in criminal court.
The punitive trend continued largely unabated in the 1990s. Between 1992 and 1997, 45 states made amendments in their transfer provisions to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders from the juvenile justice system to the criminal justice system. 31 states gave criminal and juvenile courts expanded sentencing power that generally increased the availability of adult...
To continue reading
Request your trial