The announcement by the Coalition that it would make the youth justice system harsher if elected are not grounded in evidence and risk increasing, rather than reducing, youth offending.
It is crucial that any future changes to the youth justice system are based in expertise and evidence to ensure that they are effective at reducing offending.
It is therefore noteworthy that some of the proposed “reform” appear to misunderstand the current legal framework.
“Some of these so-called reforms are already the law. That is not just a technical point—it raises real concerns about whether these proposals have been developed with any input from people with expertise in youth justice,” Gemma Cafarella, President of Liberty Victoria, said.
“We all want safer communities. Serious youth offending must be addressed. But the response must be informed by evidence and directed at the root causes of offending,” she said.
“These proposals do the exact opposite. The evidence is clear that treating young people harshly makes our communities less safe over time.”
Treating children more harshly does not reduce offending. Children and young people are at a different developmental stage, with a reduced capacity to assess risk and consequences, particularly in high-pressure, peer-driven situations.
“You can increase penalties as much as you like, but when a young person is caught up in the moment—under peer pressure, acting impulsively—they are not weighing up the prospect of a longer sentence. It does not change behaviour in the way people assume,” Ms Cafarella said.
There is also strong evidence that exposing children to adult prison environments increases the likelihood of reoffending.
“A system that prioritises punishment over rehabilitation undermines long-term community safety. Early exposure to adult prison settings entrenches criminal behaviour rather than preventing it,” Ms Cafarella said.
Liberty Victoria also warned that proposed bail changes, such as a “one-strike” rule, would undermine fundamental legal principles.
“These proposals are dangerous. A one-strike bail rule removes individualised assessment, which is vitally important in the justice system generally, and particular when dealing with vulnerable young people,” Ms Cafarella said.
“It risks detaining children who have not been found guilty, often for relatively minor conduct.”
Instead, Liberty Victoria considers that reform efforts must focus on addressing the underlying causes of youth offending.
Many children in the justice system have experienced trauma, poverty, disengagement from education, and family instability. Without targeted intervention, harsher penalties simply entrench cycles of offending.
“If we are serious about reducing youth crime, we need to invest in what works—stable housing, mental health services, meaningful education, and early intervention,” Ms Cafarella said.
“Otherwise, we are simply recycling vulnerable children through the system.”
Liberty Victoria also raised concerns about proposals to expand the use of adult courts for children.
The Children’s Court is a specialist jurisdiction designed to deal with young people, with procedures focused on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. Moving children into adult courts removes those safeguards.
“These cases belong in a specialist jurisdiction designed for children. Shifting them into adult courts strips away the expertise and protections that are critical to achieving better outcomes,” Ms Cafarella said.
The proposals completely ignore the evidence about what is needed to genuinely reduce youth offending and improve community safety.
“This is not a serious proposal to reduce youth offending or to make our communities safer,” Ms Cafarella said.
“If we want safer communities, we need policies that are evidence-based and that address why children offend in the first place—not policies that simply sound tough.”