The Concentration of Power in Youth Justice

Power in youth justice is concentrated in the hands of governments and large organisations. These entities design policies, control resources, and shape how society views youth crime. They hold the keys to deciding whether the system leans toward punishment or rehabilitation.

But what drives them to consistently choose punitive approaches?

The answer lies in political incentives. Governments, especially during election cycles, are under pressure to appear "tough on crime." Harsh policies—like increased policing and stricter sentencing—are quick, visible solutions that resonate with the public’s fears. Youth crime becomes a symbol of broader social instability, and taking a "strong" stance seems like the easiest way to reassure voters that order is being restored.

However, these punitive measures rarely address the underlying causes of youth crime—poverty, trauma, lack of education, and systemic disadvantage. The focus on punishment continues because it’s politically convenient, not because it works.

The Role of Fear and Public Perception

Why does the "tough-on-crime" rhetoric work so well with voters?

Fear is a powerful tool. When youth crime is framed as a direct threat to public safety, many citizens, especially those far removed from the realities of marginalised communities, see punitive approaches as necessary. It’s a simplified narrative: harsher sentences and more police mean safer streets.

But there’s more at play. Privilege shapes how the public perceives youth crime. Those in positions of privilege—whether due to race, class, or geography—often don’t experience the same social conditions that lead to offending. As a result, they support policies that target marginalised youth, particularly Indigenous youth, because they don’t see the root causes of crime—just the outcomes that make them feel unsafe.

The media amplifies these fears by portraying young offenders as faceless threats. This narrative dehumanises them, stripping away the complex social, economic, and cultural factors that shape their behaviour It becomes easier to justify punishment when you don't see the full picture.

A Legacy of Colonialism

The over-representation of Indigenous youth in Australia’s justice system is no coincidence. It is the product of a colonial history where laws were used to control and marginalise Indigenous populations. The system was designed to protect those in power, while simultaneously subjugating others.

This legacy continues today. The justice system is still primarily focused on control and punishment, rather than healing or addressing the root causes of youth crime, such as intergenerational trauma and systemic inequality. The punitive system reflects a colonial framework that doesn’t align with the broader ethical values of fairness and equality but instead perpetuates cycles of harm for Indigenous communities.

Rethinking the Purpose of Justice

To truly question the power dynamics at play, we need to ask: What is the true purpose of justice? If it’s only about punishment, then the system may seem to work as intended. But if justice is about creating a safer, fairer society, then it’s clear that the system is failing.

We need to return to first principles. Justice should be about rehabilitation, healing, and restoring relationships. Punitive measures don’t achieve this—they exacerbate harm, particularly for marginalised communities. Governments continue to favour punitive approaches because it’s easier to demonstrate control—but this control is an illusion. The real safety and stability we seek won’t come from incarceration but from addressing the social conditions that lead to crime in the first place.

Challenging Systemic Power Imbalances

Community-based solutions, especially those led by Indigenous leaders and people with lived experience, challenge the dominance of centralised power. These approaches are often marginalised in the policy discourse because they require a redistribution of resources and decision-making authority—away from large institutions and towards local communities.

Governments and large organisations are reluctant to relinquish this control, even though community-driven solutions have been proven to reduce reoffending and create long-term, sustainable change. If power were redistributed to those most impacted by youth crime, we’d likely see a justice system that’s more responsive to local needs and focused on healing rather than punishment.

Conclusion: Power, Privilege, and Political Incentives

By looking at youth justice through the lens of power dynamics, we see that the system is shaped not by what works, but by what’s politically convenient. The tough-on-crime rhetoric continues to appeal to voters because it aligns with fear, privilege, and the desire for simple solutions to complex problems. But real justice requires a shift in power—toward communities, Indigenous leaders, and people with lived experience—so that we can build a system that heals, empowers, and restores.

In the next post, we’ll explore how community-driven solutions could offer an alternative to the punitive system—and why storytelling is key to sharing these solutions.

Next in the Series:

Stay tuned for part two, where we’ll discuss community-driven approaches to youth justice, and how these solutions provide more effective, long-term results than punishment ever could. We’ll also delve into the importance of storytelling as a tool for amplifying local successes.

‍