Imagine this: You're a victim of a violent crime, stabbed and left with lifelong scars—does it really matter if your attacker was 16 or 40? The pain feels the same, right? That's the raw truth about youth crime that many policymakers seem to ignore. But here's where it gets controversial...
Politics (https://www.theage.com.au/politics)
Victoria (https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria)
Crime (https://www.theage.com.au/topic/melbourne-crime-5zc)
Opinion
November 13, 2025 — 7.00pm
Crime isn't some futuristic challenge like autonomous vehicles or aerial drones—it's an age-old issue that human societies have grappled with for millennia. Trillions of dollars worldwide have gone into studying it, yet in Victoria, we've seen government decisions so misguided that they've driven youth crime to its highest recorded levels this year—not once, but twice. This wasn't a fluke; it's far from ordinary.
To truly curb crime, two essentials are non-negotiable: a strong chance of getting caught and punishments that match the severity of the offense. Without them, chaos takes over. Unfortunately, Victoria falls short on both fronts, and the new proposal from the Allan government—shifting sentencing for some kids to the County Court—announced on Tuesday, won't fix that.
But wait, aren't these young offenders facing adult-level consequences now? On the surface, the Labor government claims so, but let's dig deeper. The County Court and Children's Court operate under the exact same laws, so just changing the venue for some juvenile cases won't dent Victoria's crime wave. This move feels more like a political ploy to reassure crime-weary residents that Labor is finally addressing serious offenses, especially with elections looming.
Sure, County Court judges have the power to hand out tougher sentences than Children's Court magistrates, but that doesn't guarantee they will. Just like magistrates, judges have wide latitude—they can assign anything from the harshest penalty to zero punishment for any given crime. They consult the same legal texts for guidance. As a result, County Court judges will likely still see youth as a major factor in leniency, doling out the same outcomes (often no time behind bars) as their counterparts in the Children's Court.
Premier Jacinta Allan's frustration with the "lack of consequences" in the Children's Court? It's misleading and undermines our legal framework. Parliament holds the ultimate authority to create laws, and the lenient sentences given to serious juvenile offenders can be traced back to government choices. Judges are merely interpreting the rules set by the administration. The government must own up to fueling Victoria's crime epidemic through its long-standing commitment—nearly 25 years—to restorative justice approaches that lack solid evidence.
And this is the part most people miss: Restorative justice, in simple terms, focuses on repairing harm through dialogue and community involvement rather than strict punishment. It sounds compassionate, but critics argue it lets offenders off too easily, potentially encouraging more crime. What's your take—does it truly rehabilitate, or does it enable?
The only way to resolve this crisis is by basing justice policies on proven facts and ethical standards that clearly separate wrongdoers from the innocent.
Let's ground this in reality: Biologically, a stab wound hurts just as much when inflicted by a teenager as by someone twice that age. Survivors of grave crimes often suffer permanent psychological damage from the ordeal. Yet, in the Children's Court, the go-to resolution for many is diversion—a fancy term for essentially no penalty at all. It's baffling that kids who commit heinous acts get off lighter than peers who just wear their school uniforms incorrectly. Imagine a student getting detention for a dress code violation, while another, who burglarizes homes with a weapon, walks away with a slap on the wrist. That disparity erodes the fabric of a fair society.
When actions have no repercussions, they breed more misbehavior. That's the foundation of civil society's crime-punishment link. The notion that locking up juveniles turns them into career criminals? That's a myth. A teenager who repeatedly breaks into occupied homes armed and dangerous has already crossed into extreme wrongdoing.
Research backs this up: Studies show no significant gap in reoffending rates between incarcerated and non-incarcerated youth with similar backgrounds (https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/en/publications/the-effect-of-custodial-penalties-on-juvenile-reoffending/?smau_=iHVmr7HSr0L6MrZVNKCfNKt3tRVRF). Yet, there's a massive divide in public safety—the incarcerated can't harm anyone during their time in custody, and a serial home invader is almost certain to strike again without intervention.
Even if a young offender has endured a tough upbringing, that doesn't excuse avoiding incarceration. We can't pick and choose when to prioritize trauma reduction. The harm to future victims—those innocents who might suffer next—carries more weight on the scales of justice than the offender's past. Any ethical system must value the innocent over the guilty.
Plus, with dangers like gang-related fatalities or crashes in stolen vehicles lurking for these youths, custody can actually protect them by removing them from risky environments.
Proportionality demands jail time for all major violent crimes. Still, most kids can be redeemed and reintegrated. Extensive studies reveal that broad rehabilitation efforts rarely work for most offenders, explaining why juvenile reoffending rates haven't budged in a decade, despite billions invested in programs from the expanding criminal justice sector.
Here's where we pivot to something truly counterintuitive: The real key to curbing internal criminal urges is solid education. Educated individuals make wiser choices, solve problems better, and see less appeal in crime. For example, about 78% of prison newcomers aged 25-34 never finished high school, compared to just 20.5% in the general population. Moreover, inmates who earn vocational certifications behind bars are 2.5 times less likely to return within two years post-release. We should transform youth detention centers into rigorous educational hubs—complete with secure walls. By rewarding juveniles with early freedom credits for completing studies, we'd motivate learning and long-term change. Imagine a system where inmates study engineering or trades, emerging not just reformed, but equipped for success.
The second pillar is robust deterrence. The surest way to prevent crime is by ensuring detection and capture feel inevitable. That's why police stations and courtrooms are crime-free—they embody that certainty. We can boost this by issuing fines for most minor infractions across the board, much like we do for drunk driving. This would relieve officers from endless paperwork (since over 95% of minor offenders admit guilt), allowing them to patrol more actively.
In the end, the focus must be on practical fixes: uniform enforcement, guaranteed detection, and penalties that fit the crime. Until leaders adopt science-backed strategies that safeguard communities and enforce accountability, Victoria's crime nightmare will continue to devastate countless lives—an entirely preventable tragedy.
What do you think? Is harsher punishment for youth the answer, or does restorative justice have a place? Does incarceration really protect society, or does it just cycle offenders through the system? Share your views in the comments—let's debate this!
Mirko Bagaric is a law professor at Swinburne University and author of Australian Sentencing.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here (https://www.theage.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p5b59h).
