Degree Project in Criminology Malmö University
120 Credits Two-year master Faculty of Health and Society
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
BOARD AS A NEW SYSTEM TO
END CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
AMONGST MINORS
AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY OF THE
PROFESSIONALS' EXPERIENCES
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
BOARD AS A NEW SYSTEM TO
END CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
AMONGST MINORS
AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY OF THE
PROFESSIONALS' EXPERIENCES
ANNE SOFIE HOLM OLSEN
Olsen, A.S.H. The Juvenile Delinquency Board as a new system to end criminal behavior amongst minors. An explorative study of the professionals’ experiences
Degree project in Criminology 30 Credits. Malmö University: Faculty of Health
and Society, Department of Criminology, 2021.
In 2018, the reform “All actions have consequences” and the appertaining legislative, Juvenile Delinquency Act was passed in Denmark. The reform seeks to change the procedures when working with minors who commit crime, by combining a significant and prompt consequence with support from social services to end criminal behavior amongst minors. As part of the reform, the Juvenile Delinquency Board (JDB) was established. This mixed-methods study explores the professional’s experiences with the JDB, especially regarding how the implementation of the JDB has changed the procedure of working with minors with delinquent behavior. This study also examines to what extend the minor re-offend after having a case processed in the JDB. Five qualitative interviews with professionals occupying different roles within the JDB were conducted.
Additionally, data regarding re-hearings from the JDB’s secretariat was obtained, which provided the study’s quantitative data.
The findings revealed that the work within the JDB is faced with several challenges which counteract the intention of the reform. Challenges like the insufficient protection of the child’s rights and the inability of handling minors with psychiatric diagnoses were found. The perception of the JDB was found to play a major role in how the JDB’s decision impacts the minor, as the similarities between the JDB and a juvenile court, might cause the minor to perceive the JDB’s decision as a sentence. This increases the risk of labeling the minor as a criminal which, in turn, may result in re-offending. The data regarding re-hearings revealed that over one-third of the re-hearings were related to new crimes, which indicates that the JDB’s decisions might not be as effective as intended.
Keywords: crime prevention, criminal behavior, the justice system, juvenile
delinquency, labeling, the rights of the child Words: 8.991
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ... 4
AIM OF STUDY ... 5
BACKGROUND ... 5
THE SOCIAL SERVICES BEFORE THE JDB ... 6
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY BOARD (JDB) ... 6
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ... 7
METHODS AND ETHICS ... 9
INTRODUCTION ... 9
QUANTITATIVE DATA ... 9
QUALITATIVE DATA ... 9
Sampling ... 9
Interview procedures ... 11
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE STUDY ... 11
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 12
THE ANALYTICAL STRATEGY OF THE INTERVIEWS ... 12
FINDINGS ... 12
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS ... 12
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS ... 13
Challenges with the JDB ... 14
The rights of the child/youth ... 15
The JDB’s impact on the minors ... 16
Improvements to the work with minors who commits crime ... 17
DISCUSSION ... 18
RE-OFFENDING AS AN OUTCOME OF THE PERCEPTION OF THE JDB ... 19
OPPOSING UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE JDB’S IMPACT ... 19
THE PERCEPTION OF A JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ... 20
POSITIVE EXPERIENCES WITH THE JDB ... 21
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 21
CONCLUSION ... 21
REFERENCES ... 23
INTRODUCTION
Youth crime in Denmark has decreased significantly in the last decade. However, a small group of minors is still responsible for a disproportionate part of all the juvenile delinquency (Justitsministeriet, 2017). The Social Services, which work with minors that have committed or are suspected of committing a crime,
emphasizes early intervention in crime preventive work. Even though the level of youth crime had decreased, in 2018 the government1 in office, the Social
Democratic Party, and the Danish People’s Party entered into a political
agreement reforming the current work on youth crime in Denmark. The deal was based on the governments’ proposition from October 2017, “Alle handlinger har konsekvenser” [All actions have consequences”] (Ungdomskriminalitetsnævnet [UKN], 2020). Along with the new reform, a new legislative “Lov om
bekæmpelse af ungdomskriminalitet” [Juvenile Delinquency Act], 1705:2018 was passed on December 18, 2018, with effect from January 1, 2019, and created the legal foundation for the reform. The reform “All Actions Have Consequences” is described as a more consistent and immediate approach when minors commit a crime, aimed at stopping the crime trajectory and bringing young people back into the community (UKN, 2020). The reform seeks to change the previous handling of minors between 10-17 years old who is suspected of or have been charged with a crime. This is done by combining an appreciable and prompt consequence with support from social services to establish a crime-free lifestyle in the future (UKN, 2020).
In Denmark, the age of criminal responsibility is 15, which means that the children under the age of 15 who are suspected of an offense are not getting processed in the legal system, but in the social services system. With Denmark’s ratification of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child in 1991, the focus moved towards crime prevention directed at youth crime. More emphasis was put on the measures taken by the social authorities and that they, to an increasing extent, are participating in the implementation of the sentences decided in court for those youths above the age of 15 (Kyvsgaard, 2004). Now, the reform and the new legislation provide a new procedure when working with children with criminal behavior. This procedure has not been seen in a danish context before, and the new approach is followed by concerns and criticism from several professionals, especially regarding the protection of the legal rights for minors (Hauerslev, 2021).
In short, the reform consists of 15 new initiatives distributed to three categories of minors depending on the seriousness of their criminal behavior (figure 1). This study focuses on the Juvenile Delinquency Board (JDB) which is concentrated on the smallest category with minors who are at high risk of initiating a criminal career (UKN, 2020).
AIM OF STUDY
In relation to the above, this study aims to explore different concerned
professional’s experiences with the Juvenile Delinquency Board (JDB), especially in terms of how the introduction of the JDB has changed the procedure of working with children and youths with delinquent behavior. Additionally, this study also intends to examine to what extent the child or youth re-offend after having a case processed in the JDB. The use of “genoptagelsessager” [re-hearings] is intended to indicate the JDB’s impact on the child or youth’s delinquent behavior.
BACKGROUND
The changes made regarding the work with juveniles are considered to reflect the general changes in society due to the development of the welfare state. Penal ideologies have shifted between focusing on legal rights and proportionality on the one hand and more rehabilitative ideas, such as treatment-oriented sanctions on the other (Kyvsgaard, 2004). The shift in penal ideologies also shows in the changes regarding the age of criminal responsibility, which is currently at 15, and has stayed constant since the implementation of the Danish Criminal Code of 1930. The only exception is 20 months from July 1, 2010, to March 1, 2012, where the right-wing government changed the penal law and lowered the age of criminal responsibility to 14 (Kyvsgaard, 2004; Damm et al., 2017).
In Denmark, there is no separate justice system for juveniles. Instead, when youths are above the age of criminal responsibility, they are tried in the same justice system and according to the same criminal code as adult offenders (Straffeloven, 1650:2020). However, some special sanctions and procedures are present for those between the ages of 15-17. This can result in a more lenient sanction for juvenile offenders, as the age of the defendant can be seen as a mitigating circumstance (Straffeloven, 2020). The justice system for juveniles in Denmark can best be described as overlapping between the justice system and the social services system, as the 15-17-year-olds are partly treated on the same terms as adult offenders, and partly treated within the social services as minors under 15 years old (Kyvsgaard, 2004). As part of the lenient procedures, youths under the
age of 18 are not serving their prison sentence with adult offenders, but they are instead placed in a secure institution where they will receive social and
educational support (Straffuldbyrdelsesloven, 2019).
The shift in penal ideologies throughout the years has created a lot of tension regarding how to deal with delinquent minors. The reform was implemented at a time where youth crime had been decreasing for the last decade. The focus on consequences for minors has raised some concerns, especially regarding the children between 10-14-years old from several professionals working in this field. The concern for the children relates particularly to the fact the JDB may be
perceived as a juvenile court due to its focus on consequences, and that the rights of the child are not protected enough in this system.
The social services before the JDB
The social services that work with minors at risk of committing crime, are placed in the municipalities and are primarily carried out by social workers or other professionals with knowledge about social vulnerability. The range of options a social worker has when working with crime-prone minors are grounded in the “bekendtgørelse af lov om social service (serviceloven) [promulgation of the Social Service Act (Social Service Act)] 1287:2020, where the objects clause is to provide advice and support to prevent social problems. The measures that are put into place when working with minors between 10-17-years old are found in the Social Service Act section 52 (3). These consist of eight recommendations ranging from family treatment to of-home placement. When a mandatory out-of-home placement is considered, the case is required to be processed by the Committee on Children and Youths. The committee consists of five members: two politicians, two child experts, and one judge, who decides on mandatory
interventions for children and youths who need social support according to the Social Service Act (Børn og unge-udvalget, 2021).
Another important aspect of preventative work within the social services is the SSP cooperation. The SSP is a cooperation between local authorities and includes school and recreation (S), the local social services (S), and the local police (P) and allows the participating authorities to exchange personal information on
individuals when it is necessary for crime preventative work (Mehlbye, 2019).
The Juvenile Delinquency Board (JDB)
The reform’s initiatives include new administrations such as the Juvenile Delinquency Board (JDB). This involves new terminology. However, the new terms, such as “straksreaktion” [immediate sanction], “forbedringsforløb” [rehabilitation program], and “ungefaglig undersøgelse” [youth assessment] are equivalent to the parts of the Social Service Act previously used when working with these minors (Serviceloven, 2020). The JDB now makes decisions rooted in the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA), rather than the Social Service Act as this provides a more stringent focus on criminal behavior. Although the treatment of the two legislative is almost identical, the JDA contains faster deadlines, more obligations for the municipalities, and more supervision of the minor.
The JDB is established in all 12 police districts in Denmark and consists of one chairperson and several vice-chairpersons, who are city court judges. The appointed judges constitute the chairmanship of the JDB (JDA, 2018). Besides a judge, the board members consist of municipality employees with experience in
social work with vulnerable children and youth, and police staff with experience in crime preventative work.
For a case to be referred and processed at the JDB three criteria must be met before the act can be applied, cf. JDA section 2. The minor must be between 10-17-years old, have a permanent residency in Denmark, and be suspected or
convicted of crimes against persons2 or other serious crimes3 (JDA, 2018). Youths between 15-17-years old are referred to the JDB as part of their sentence in court, while children between 10-14-years old are referred to the JDB by the police, based on a suspicion of crimes against person or other serious crimes (UKN, 2020). When a case is referred to the JDB, the board requests a youth assessment of the minor from the municipality where the minor is residing. The youth assessment assesses the minor’s development and behavior, along with an assessment of factors regarding the family, school, peers, and health, to get a comprehensive picture of the minor and his or her environment to identify where further social support is needed (JDA, 2018). The assessment results in a
“indstilling” [recommendation] regarding possible measures and will include a suggestion of the best care plan for the minor in question. The recommendation is forwarded to the JDB who may use it when making their decision in the board meeting (JDA, 2018). The board meeting takes place in a meeting room at the courthouse, where several people are present. Besides the three board members and the minor with the custodians, there must be a representative present from the municipality, the youth probation service, and a member of the board secretariat. In cases regarding the 10–14-year-olds the presence of a child expert is required, whereas regarding the 15–17-year-olds a child expert is only required when a radical intervention, such as an out-of-home placement, is considered (JDA, 2018). Other people such as a translator or a resource person4 who will play a role going forward may also be present. In cases where an out-out-home placement is considered, a minor above 12 years old and the custodians are eligible for free legal assistance (JDA, 2018).
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Research regarding the effect of the punishment on juvenile delinquency in terms of deterrence has been examined from several aspects. In the US, juvenile courts have the procedure known as a juridical waiver, to transfer the jurisdiction of juveniles to criminal courts to be tried as adults. This procedure has been the center of many studies on the effect of harsher sentences will have on deterrence. Singer and McDowall (1998) studied the effect of juveniles from the age of 13, accused of violent crimes, that were tried in criminal courts with sentences comparable to adults, and that the sentence should be served in secure facilities. The results showed no effect in reducing serious crimes (Singer & McDowall, 1998). Additionally, other studies by Jensen and Metsger (1994) and Risler, Sweatman, and Nackerud (1998) found that the juridical waiver to adult criminal court did not reduce serious juvenile crime.
Other studies have focused on the effects of experiencing other sanctions like 2 Crimes against persons include assault, rape, blackmail or robbery.
3 Other serious crimes include burglary, fraud, vandalism, arson, drug related crimes or possession
of weapons (UKN, 2020).
4A resource person can be categorized as an individual with a close relation to the child or youth,
police contact or being arrested. Liberman et al. (2014) studied the effect the first arrest has on both re-offending and rearrest and found that the first arrest increases the probability of both re-offending and subsequent arrest. Also, a first arrest seems to increase subsequent law enforcement reactions to those youths compared to other youths who commit similar crimes but have managed to evade a first arrest (Liberman et al., 2014). Bernburg and Krohn (2003) also found that official interventions increase the probability of being involved in subsequent
delinquency, due to the exclusionary processes that have negative consequences for conventional opportunities.
Damm et al. (2017) studied the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility, which was lowered from 15 to 14 years for 20 months starting in 2010 in
Denmark. Results showed that the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility did not deter 14-year-olds from offending. The youths affected by the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility were more likely to recidivate and less likely to be enrolled in the 9th grade (Damm et al., 2017). Additionally, the study found no evidence that the interaction with the criminal justice system and the receipt of a criminal record at an early age would result in less crime (Damm et al., 2017). The labeling perspective appears from the results of the studies examining the experiences of juvenile punishment on re-offending. Becker (1963;2018) argues that deviance is not a quality of the act an individual commits, but rather a
consequence of the application of a label as an offender by others. This means that a deviant is an individual where a label successfully has been applied.
Lemert (1972; Newburn, 2017) argues that deviance is distinguished between primary and secondary deviance. The primary deviance is the act of a crime. The
secondary deviance occurs when an individual begins to employ a deviant
behavior as an adjustment to the consequent societal reaction to the individual. The social response to an offender could lead to the offender making adjustments to their perception and understanding of themselves. This may lead to them perceive themselves as deviant and acting on this perception.
The JDB has not been seen in a danish context before, but Scotland has a very similar system called the “Children’s Hearings System (CHS)”. This is presented as a care and justice system to protect the safety and wellbeing of infants,
children, and young people (The children’s hearings system (CHS), 2021). Referrals to the CHS are made to the Reporter and even though anyone can make a referral, the majority of the referrals, both regarding non-offenses and offenses, are made by the police (McAra & McVie, 2005). Children from 0-15 years old can be referred to the CHS on care and protection grounds, whereas children from the criminal age of responsibility, which is 8 in Scotland until age 15 can be referred on offense grounds. Youths between 16-17 who offends are generally processed in the adult criminal court (McAra & McVie, 2005). The Reporter’s role is to investigate the case to determine if the case is applicable for a hearing. A Child Hearing consists of a panel with three volunteer panel members from the public who makes legal decisions. A study conducted by McAra and McVie (2007) examines the impact on the CHS and how this affects future offending for those youths who have been processed in the CHS. The results show that the repeated and more intensive forms of contact with agencies of youth justice may be damaging to youths in the longer term, even though the measures are based within a welfare-based system (McAra & McVie, 2007). The study also found that the cumulative effect of systematic contact with social agencies over many years has the potential to stigmatize and criminalize. McAra and McVie (2007)
argue, based on the findings in their study, that the key to reducing youth offending lies in maximum diversion and minimal intervention.
Additionally, a system very similar to the JDB and inspired by the CHS has been proposed, but not implemented, in a Swedish context. In a report by Wikström and Torstensson (1997) produced on the behalf of the Ministry of Justice to design a national crime prevention program, the “Barn- och Ungdomspanel” [Children and Youth panel] was introduced. The panel comprise of the same elements as the CHS and the JDB, such as targeting children below the age of criminal responsibility and creating a panel where a judge and social workers decide, based on a social investigation of the child’s life, what the best care plan would be to end the criminal behavior (Wikström & Torstensson, 1997).
METHODS AND ETHICS
Introduction
This study is mixed methods and is based on qualitative interviews with
professionals and quantitative data in form of a data extraction from the secretariat of the JDB. Using mixed methods provides an opportunity to examine the topic from a nuanced perspective as the subjective experiences from the professionals are supported by the data from the JDB. The disadvantage of using mixed
methods for this study is that the quantitative and qualitative data are presented in two different forms. This may complicate the analysis, however, the benefits from using the interviews to get a subjective perspective and the use of statistics to provide a general view on the results, outweighs the disadvantage.
Quantitative data
Data from the data extraction covers the period from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, and reports the cases where the JDB has re-opened an already existing rehabilitation program (re-hearing). Re-hearings includes the cases processed under the Juvenile Delinquency Act § 21 (re-hearings), § 22 (return home), § 23 (re-processing), § 24 (change of placement), and §§ 50-51 (reporting and briefing). The data is not representative of the number of held board meetings, as there can be held multiple meetings within the same case. Also, the reported age is related to the age of the minor at the time the JDB receives the request for a re-hearing. Also, the total number of cases received in the JDB in 2020 is unknown at this time. The total number of cases received in 2019 will be used in the study, however, the use of numbers from two different years will produce errors in the findings.
Qualitative data
Sampling
In qualitative research nonprobability sampling is common, and this research has used the convenience sampling method, more specifically snowball sampling. This method is used when it is difficult to reach the target group, and the researcher recruits further informants via their acquaintances (Naderifar et al., 2017). The recruitment process of the informants began in the researcher’s
network. Five individuals were contacted via email with a request to participate in the study, along with a description of the study. Two responded (informant A and C) saying they were willing to participate, and one would not participate as an
informant but were willing to help with practical questions regarding the topic. Via the non-participating informant, I was put in contact with informant B, who was willing to participate as an informant. Informant C provided access to informant D and E. By using the snowball sampling method, some of the
informants in this study know each other professionally. This might result in them having the same views and experiences with the topic, which can affect the reliability and validity of the paper, as the representation is limited. This will be discussed further in the discussion of the data.
The sample consists of five informants divided between one judge, one police representative, one municipality representative, and two caseworkers. These informants and their experiences help explore the aim of the study by examining how the professionals experience the JDB as a new authority. Although the number of informants is small, the different professions and roles are represented. This may contribute to a more nuanced view of the work within the JDB as their experiences mirror different professional backgrounds. The small number of informants might be linked to the covid-19 pandemic, making it more challenging to contact possible informants.
The results from this study will illustrate experiences from the JDB, but this is not representative for the entire network of JDB.
Informants
All the informants provided their informed consent for the interview to be recorded and used only for this research. The statements by the informants are anonymous in the paper; however, it is vital to present them in terms of what their work entails and why they are regarded as suitable informants (Table 1).
Interview procedures
As mentioned above, I got in contact with a non-participating informant, who was willing to help with practical questions. This can be seen as a pilot interview of an explorative sort, to explore what is possible and to narrow the topic down. This information will not be used as data for the analysis. However, the pilot interview impacted the study design, by providing background information as well as an overview of the possibilities, along with providing access to other informants. This impact calls for source critic of the data, as the impact may have directed the study in line with the views of the non-participating informant.
The interviews are based on a phenomenological approach, as the purpose of the interviews is to understand, describe, and examine the experiences of the
informants from their perspective and perception (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The interviews were performed virtually due to the covid-19 pandemic. When interviewing virtually, the interaction between the interviewer and the informant might not be as good as an interview in person due to limitations such as bad internet connection, difficulties in sensing emotions, body language, etc.
However, some positive aspects of interviewing online are that it was possible to interview an informant residing in another part of Denmark.
The questions were constructed as open-ended questions to enable the informant to speak freely and share their experiences. As the interviews were
semi-structured these open-ended questions provided the researcher to ask follow-up questions based on what the informant shared, while still leaning on the interview guide (Appendix 1). The interviews had an average length of 48 minutes and were conducted in danish.
It is important to stress that the statements from the informants are their personal opinions and their experiences, and they are not talking on behalf of either the organization they may represent in the JDB, or the JDB itself.
Reliability and validity of the study
Collecting qualitative data such as interviews can cause errors in the data, such as the formulation of the questions, misunderstandings between the researcher and informant, or lack of memory from the informant (Metodeguiden, 2021). Being exposed to more errors than other data methods can affect the reliability and validity of the results. Also, the generalizability is perceived as low for this type of method. However, combining the qualitative data from the interviews with the quantitative data from the data extraction from the JDB may increase the validity of the results. The data extraction increases the reliability and validity of this study as this data represents the actual cases in the JDB. However, there are some uncertainties associated with the data as the total number of cases referred to the JDB in 2020 is unknown at this time, which leaves the total number of 2019 to be used in the discussion. The fact that the numbers compared are not from the same year causes some errors.
Another aspect important to consider is that four of the informants work in the same police district, whereas the fifth informant works in another police district. This can result in some differences in the practical procedures of the JDB
meetings. However, their work is governed by the same guidelines and laws, and the minor differences that might occur between the two police districts, should not impact the professionals’ experiences with the JDB. This motivates the choice of including the fifth informant in this research.
It is important to mention that the initial contact between the researcher and the informants was established through the researcher’s network. Connections made through a private network may cause bias in the interview setting, as there might be mutual acquaintances between the researcher and informants. This can either make the informant hold back on information or overshare information not appropriate for this study. However, in this case, there is no personal association between the researcher and the informants.
Ethical considerations
This study does not require ethical approval by Malmö University’s Ethical Review Board, as the study will not contain ethically sensitive information
(Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). However, there are still ethical aspects to consider when collecting and processing data. This study has been performed with the respect for the informants’ autonomy and also safeguards regarding confidentiality. All informants were contacted via email with a description of the purpose of the study, the promise of anonymity, and the opportunity to withdraw their consent at any time. They all gave consent, over email, for participating in the study and the interview to be recorded. The informants have been anonymized to ensure that they cannot be identified from the dataset (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017).
The handling of the audio recording was carried out with several security measures. During the transcription and anonymization process, the internet
connection was turned off, along with removing the audio data from the computer onto an external hard drive. The data will remain on the external hard drive, until after the examination, when it will be deleted. This is done to ensure the
confidentiality of the informants, and the data from the different informants will not be discussed with the other informants (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). However, as this study used the snowball method, there is a possibility that the informants will consult with each other about what they have shared during the interviews. Nevertheless, the informants will not get any details from the other interviews from the researcher.
The analytical strategy of the interviews
The collected data have been through the process of open coding, intending to categorize and conceptualize the data (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). During this process, the transcripts of the interviews were read multiple times and four main themes were identified. The transcripts were then read again focusing on marking the sections according to the identified themes. A constructionist perspective is utilized, to comprehend how the informants construct the narratives that shape the themes in the data.
FINDINGS
Quantitative findings
In 2019, a total of 780 cases were referred to the JDB, of these 384 concerns the 10-14-year-olds, and 396 concerns the 15-17-year-olds. The total number of 2020 is unknown at this moment. Since re-hearings occur after the first meeting, the number for 2019 is still relevant when discussing the data, however, the numbers are associated with some uncertainty due to the different years. In 2020 the JDB received 416 cases regarding re-hearings. Of these, 142 (34%) of the re-hearings
are related to new crimes after a rehabilitation program has been initiated. The majority of the re-hearings (91 cases) concern the 15-17-year-olds, whereas the 10-14-year-olds are responsible for the remaining (51 cases). When comparing the total number of cases referred to the JDB in 2019, over half of the cases continue as a re-hearing, and approximately one-fifth is regarding new crimes.
The outcome of the re-hearings shows that the majority of outcomes resulted in a change in the existing rehabilitation program (figure 2). The outcome ‘changed’ includes different actions, such as a change in the decision cf. JDA § 13 or a change in the placement of the child or youth cf. JDA § 24.
In Figure 3, the changes made to the rehabilitation program under the JDA § 13, indicate that several types of actions are tried if the current care plan is not working as intended. Also, when a change is made to the rehabilitation program it is likely to result in an extension of the
program. Furthermore, the
‘dismissal of rehabilitation program’ includes the end of a program indicating that the child or youth
have completed the rehabilitation program.
Qualitative findings
In table 2, the frequency of the times the specific theme occurs in the interviews is presented, to illustrate the theme’s impact. The information from the table shapes the following discussion of the data below. Four themes were identified and are based on several statements regarding different aspects of the work within the JDB. The first theme consists of different challenges related to the JDB, whereas the second theme primarily concentrates on the lack of protection of the legal rights for minors. The third theme consists of both the positive and negative impact the JDB and its decisions can have on minors. Lastly, the fourth theme comprises of the experiences regarding the new opportunities and improvements the JDB provides when working with this group of minors.
Challenges with the JDB
The most frequent theme is “challenges with the JDB”. All the informants expressed several concerns and challenges with the aspects of the JDB based on their individual experiences. Despite the informants’ different roles within the JDB, they all recognized that the JDB is not well equipped for dealing with the minors who have a psychiatric diagnosis:
“Where I think there are some challenges, it’s with these children who are very very bad due to diagnoses, i.e., poorly cognitively functioning. We have a challenge in that area because the setup is what it is. I think that is a bit difficult.” (My translation5) (Informant A)
Also, informant D shares some concerns regarding a case where a child was violent at an institution. The social services recommended that the child’s care plan should be rooted in the Social Service Act, and not the Juvenile Delinquency Act due to the child having psychiatric issues. The JDB decided to go against the recommendation of the social service.
“…her challenge isn’t criminality. It is psychosocial. She has psychiatric challenges. The judge makes the decision anyway, that she needs help under the Juvenile Delinquency Act. That is an escalation of her problems.”6 (Informant D).
The inability to handle minors with a psychiatric diagnosis concerns the minor’s capability to understand or control the actions that resulted in a JDB meeting. Also, the criminal behavior can be a result of an untreated psychiatric diagnosis, which a rehabilitation program cf. JDA § 13, is not aimed at.
Following the quote above from informant A, another challenge with the JDB is the setup and frames for the deliberations. The meeting takes place in a meeting room in the courthouse, which may appear intimidating. The number of people present for a meeting can also be overwhelming for the minor who is at the epicenter of the meeting.
“Many actors are sitting around this table, and that is what it is, as professionals we are going to understand it at some point, but my personal opinion regarding this is, it will go over the head of the youths, they do not understand what this is. And at some point, there will be created a narrative, in my opinion, it is already happening, a narrative that this is a court. Legally speaking it is a board, but the youths perceive it as they are sitting in front of a judge.”7 (Informant D).
The fact that the child or youth perceives the board meeting as a court hearing is a challenge, as there is a sense by those minors of getting a sentence, and by then being labeled as a criminal. This will be discussed further in this study.
The minor is faced with up to 10-15 adults present at their meeting, dependent on the degree of invasive measures in question. The challenges here were mentioned several times during the interviews. One informant (informant B) highlighted 5 ”Altså der hvor jeg synes der er nogle udfordringer, det er jo ved de her børn der er meget meget
dårlige på grund af diagnoser, altså dårligt kognitivt fungerende. Der har vi jo en udfordring, fordi setuppet er som det er. Og det synes jeg er en smule vanskeligt.”
6 “… det er ikke kriminalitet der er hendes udfordring. Det er psykosocialt. Hun har psykiatriske
udfordringer. Alligevel vælger den her dommer at træffe en afgørelse om at hun skal have hjælp i henhold til lov om bekæmpelse af ungdomskriminalitet. Det er en eskalering af hendes
problematikker.”
7 ”Så der er mange aktører som sidder rundt om det her bord, og det er så hvad det er, vi skal nok
forstå det os kommunale ansatte os professionelle på et eller andet tidspunkt, men min personlige mening omkring det her er, at det går hen over hovedet på de her unge, de forstår ikke hvad det er. Og der bliver skabt et narrativ på et eller andet tidspunkt, det er allerede ved at ske er min
however that the number of people present is also part of the premise for protecting the legal rights of the minor as much as possible.
Another challenge found is the long period between a crime is committed until a JDB meeting is held. This counteracts the intentions with the reform; to deploy a more consistent and immediate approach to change the children and youth’s criminal behavior.
“Well, generally I think that it takes too long for the cases to get to the JDB, and that depends on the police case processing. Way too long. All too often, I think that they are dealing with ancient crimes. Before the police… get it processed, raises a charge, and have the cases sent. It simply takes too long”8. (Informant A)
The rights of the child/youth
The theme “the rights of the child/youth” involves several challenges with the protection of the legal rights for the minors, whose case is processed in the JDB. It can be argued that this theme could be categorized within the theme “challenges with the JDB”, however, due to the legal status of the convention of the rights of the child and its frequency in the dataset, it is considered as an individual theme. One of the highly debated aspects regarding the legal rights of minors concerns those under the age of criminal responsibility, as those cannot legally be punished. In the cases regarding the 10-14-year-olds, the question of whether the child has committed an offense is not investigated. Instead, the cases are focused on the support necessary to help ensure that the child does not continue with the criminal behavior (JDA, 2018). The fact that the 10-14-year-old children are referred to the JDB based on suspicion, whereas the 15-17-years old are convicted in court, has sparked concern for the legal rights of the children between 10-14-years old. This is because courts are considered to provide better legal protection of the formal rights of the prosecuted.
“I still think that their [the 10-14-year-olds] legal rights are lagging, regarding all the things related to the presumption of innocence and the right to an attorney before questioning. That is not offered, that is why I think their legal rights are poorer than for the 15-17-years old, and I still think that is problematic”9 (Informant C)
“I don’t think it is okay, that because you are above 15 years old, then you have more rights. I think that is problematic. What is even more problematic, is that they don’t understand what it is all about.”10 (Informant D)
Furthermore, free legal assistance is only available when there is a question regarding an out-of-home placement, cf. JDA § 46. Having a lawyer appointed is highly debated both amongst the informants and from different professional 8 “Altså, jeg synes generelt at sagerne er for længe om at komme i nævnet, og det beror på
politiets sagsbehandling. Alt alt for længe. Jeg synes at vi alt for ofte sidder med en kriminalitet der er virkelig gammel, hvor der så inden politiet ligesom tager sig af… får det sagsbehandlet, rejser sigtelse, og får sendt sagerne. Der er simpelthen alt for lang tid.”
9 ”Jeg synes stadig, at deres retssikkerhed halter i en sådan grad, fordi alle de ting med en
uskyldsformodning og alt det her med retten til en forsvar inden en afhøring. Det har vi ikke, så derfor er deres retssikkerhed, så synes jeg, at ringere end den er for de 15-17-årige, og det synes jeg fortsat er problematisk.”
10 ”Jeg synes ikke at det er i orden, fordi at du er over 15 år, så har du flere rettigheder. Så det
synes jeg er problematisk. Det der er endnu mere problematisk, det er at de ikke forstår hvad det er det handler om”
associations criticizing the lack of protection of the rights for the 10-14-year-olds (Hauerslev, 2021).
Additionally, the right to appeal the decision from the JDB is very limited. The right to appeal is only applicable when more invasive measures are considered, cf. JDA § 5511. Decisions regarding other measures cannot be appealed. If the same measures were decided under the Social Service Act, the minor would have a right to appeal, no matter the degree of invasiveness. It can be argued that even a
measure such as a curfew might not be as invasive as being removed from home. However, the minor may still feel that the decision constitutes an invasion of his or her privacy and freedom, which should provide a right to appeal.
When looking at table 2, it is fascinating that informant A does not mention anything about the child’s rights, taking the informant’s tasks as a judge into consideration. From the dataset, informant A expresses that the JDB cases
regarding the 10-14-year-olds can be seen as an alternative to the work informant A did in the Committee on Children and Youths. This can rationalize that the experience from the committee, where the rights of the child is not an issue, is transferred onto the JDB. Also, informant A has not had any cases where there was a need for concern regarding the rights, in terms of the severity of the crime. This can explain why there is no mention of this in the dataset, as the statements are based on the informant’s own experiences. Informant A did reflect upon the fact that there has not been a situation yet, where the child’s rights were
compromised as the cases were examined thoroughly, however, if such a situation should arise, informant A shared concern for how to handle it.
The JDB’s impact on the minors
The theme “The JDB’s impact on the children/youths” is the second most frequent theme and concerns positive and negative impacts on the minor. The informants D and E are the only informants from the sample that works closely with the minors and their families. The experiences these informants have, provides an insight on the impact on the minors, as the role of these informants is to provide support throughout the JDB meeting. This is also shown in table 2, as informant D and E have the highest frequency in the two themes where the minors’ perspective is considered. Both caseworkers are unconvinced that the JDB has the intended effect, which is to end the criminal behavior amongst the minors.
“To be honest, I don’t think it prevents crime, not to a great extent. There might be some individual cases here and there, where you can see that it actually helped. But that wasn’t somebody who couldn’t be helped under the Social Service Act”12 (Informant E)
When asked how the informants experience the minors’ perception of the decision, they receive from the JDB, the informants share different experiences across the different roles they have in the JDB. The board members shared positive experiences regarding the minors’ acceptance of the decision.
“I find that the majority of the youths are actually happy with the dialogue that has been and actually thinks it is nice to have been heard. Some of them, and there are a few, are not happy with the decision. They can’t see the need for any intervention. But in most cases, I actually find
11 Examples of invasive measures according to the Juvenile Delinquency Act section 55 (2)
includes completion of a youth assessment at an institution, placement without consent, and placement at a secure institution.
12 ”Jeg tror ikke at det forebygger kriminalitet hvis jeg skal være ærlig, altså ikke i en høj grad. Det
that many are happy with the decision. Also, some decisions state that there should not be a decision [dismissal of the case].”13 (Informant B)
The fact that the board meetings are based on a dialogue provides an opportunity for the minor and their families to be heard and involved in the decision, which can motivate a behavioral change. Although some of the youths appreciate the dialogue-based meeting, it requires the minor to participate in the dialogue which can be a challenge for some. The challenge in the participation lies in the fact that some minors might not understand the importance of the dialogue, or some might defy the whole situation.
In contrast, informant E shared opposite experiences from the work and talks with the minors in relation to the pre-and post-casework following a JDB meeting:
“The hardcore youths... they don’t really care, but they are obviously resisting because suddenly, they’re going to meetings with the youth probation services, etc. And some of them follow it a little better than others. But they don’t really care, so we can try and do anything such as placing them at a home… And then they don’t follow it anyway or still go out and do crime.”14 (Informant E)
The two opposite experiences illustrate how the different roles within the JDB experience the outcome of the board meetings. This can also question the setup of the JDB regarding those deciding the content of the care plan have another picture of the minors than the caseworkers who work closely with them and their
families. The experiences are subjective and the fact that the informants are talking about different cases affects the generalizability. The different experiences related to their role within the JDB exemplifies the challenges that can arise and affect the outcome of an institution, like the JDB, which are reliant on the cooperation between different professionals.
Improvements to the work with minors who commits crime
The informants also reflected upon improvements to the work within this field that came with the implementation of JDB. This is categorized within the theme “improvements to the work with children and youths who commits crime”. Even though this theme has the second-lowest frequency, all the informants shared reflections, especially regarding how their work has changed with the
implementation of the JDB. Corresponding with the intends of the JDB, the decision-making process, e.g., the responsibility for the individual care plan, was moved from the social services to the JDB. This fact, along with the supervision from the youth probation service, was understood as providing a more focused and binding approach to change the minor’s criminal behavior.
“So, in my opinion, it is clear that the plans that are being put in place concerning the youths, there is a much higher tendency for them to be
13 ”Jeg oplever at majoriteten af de unge faktisk er glade for den dialog der har været og faktisk
synes at det er rart at være blevet hørt. Nogle af dem, og det er et fåtal, de er ikke tilfreds med afgørelsen. De kan ikke selv se, at de har behov for det nævnet afgør. Men i de fleste tilfælde, oplever jeg rent faktisk, at der er mange der er glade for afgørelsen, og man må så også sige at der jo også nogle afgørelser der går ud på, at der ikke skal være en afgørelse.”
14 ”De hardcore unge… de er ret ligeglade, men de er selvfølgelige sådan i trods og alt muligt fordi
de lige pludselig skal til møder i ungekriminalforsorgen og alt muligt andet. Og nogle af dem følger det lidt bedre end andre. Men de er egentlig ret ligeglade, altså vi kan gøre hvad som helst for eksempel ved at anbringe dem... Og så følger de det ikke alligevel eller går stadigvæk ud og laver kriminalitet.”
completed today than were in the past, and that is because of the board.”15 (Informant B)
The increased completion can be related to different things, such as the fact that the social services, before the JDB, were faced with insufficient resources when planning the most suitable care plan. This aspect is removed from the social services, as they are now required to implement the decision from the JDB, regardless of the resources. The caseworkers also acknowledge the benefits from the JDB decisions with no regard to the financial aspect.
“It is also support for us, that suddenly we can get something that we perhaps have been struggling with for years to get. And conversely, the times when the families wanted something they might not be able to get it, then all of the sudden they get the support from the JDB.”16 (Informant E). “In cases where the municipalities have neglected or have had a utilitarian approach and said, “the youth doesn’t want it anyway” and then the JDB has made some decisions across the municipalities, so in that way, it has benefited positively.”17 (Informant D)
The transfer of obligations from the social services to the JDB was also emphasized as positive factors for the social workers:
“In fact, I find that the social workers within the social services have had a burden lifted from their shoulders because the board makes the
decisions, that they had to make in the past. It has become a bit easier for them to become a close representative who listens to the family when it is now the board that makes the decisions.”18 (Informant B).
Even though the caseworkers no longer decide on a specific care plan, they are still required to notify the JDB if the minor deviates from the plan or there is a need to revise the decision. Nevertheless, the new structure was comprehended as an improvement within the abovementioned aspects of the work with minors who are suspected of or have committed a crime.
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to explore the professionals’ experiences with the JDB,
considering the new procedure for working with minors with delinquent behavior. And to examine to what extend the minor re-offend after having their cases being processed in the JDB. The findings revealed that the JDB is faced with several challenges in the work with minors who are suspected of or have committed a crime. The majority of the findings relate to challenges that counteract the intention of the reform.
15 ”Så min opfattelse er klart, at de planer der bliver lagt i forhold til de unge, der er en langt højere
tendens til at de bliver gennemført i dag, end der var tidligere, og det er på grund af nævnet, at det er blevet sådan”
16 ”Så er det jo også en støtte til os, at vi lige pludselig kan få sat noget på, som vi jo måske har
kæmpet med i årevis om at få på. Og omvendt kan man sige, de gange hvor familien gerne ville have noget, men de måske ikke kunne få det, så får de støtten lige pludselig fra UKN”
17 ”I sager hvor kommuner har negligeret, eller har tænkt og har haft en nytteetisk tilgang til det og
har sagt “den unge vil jo ikke alligevel”, der har nævnet så truffet nogle afgørelser hen over kommunen, så på den måde har det bridraget positiv”
18”Jeg oplever faktisk at de sagsbehandlere der sidder ovre i socialforvaltningen, har fået løftet en
byrde fra deres skuldre, fordi nævnet træffer nogle af de afgørelser som de tidligere skulle træffe. Det er blevet lidt nemmere for dem at være en tæt repræsentant som lytter til familien, når det nu
Re-offending as an outcome of the perception of the JDB
The data show that the placement of the JDB meetings within the courthouse can confuse the minors who attend the meetings. According to the informants, the associative connections that come with a courthouse and a judge often relate to a criminal court case, which is also how some of the minors perceive it. This is especially challenging, as some of the minors perceive the decision from the JDB as a sentence. The perception of a sentence can label the child or youth a criminal, which can enhance the criminal behavior and result in re-offending. Previous research found that the official interventions and the first arrest increase the risk of re-offending and subsequent arrests. It is important to mention that arrests do not occur for the 10-14-year-olds, however, the contact with the police may have a similar effect. It is essential to differentiate between a conviction and a JDB meeting in terms of the content of the decision/sentence as they serve two different purposes. However, it can be argued that the impact the decision from the JDB can have on the 10-14-year-olds is similar to a conviction, due to their perception of the frames of the meeting. Their perception may cause secondary deviance, as the minor can start adjusting to the societal reaction, in this case, the decision from the JDB. This, in turn, might lead to a self-perception as a criminal and continue to influence the minor’s perception.
As the JDB has not been seen in a danish context before, it is fruitful to look at the experiences from the Scottish CHS. Even though the national and cultural
contexts are different, it can be argued that the mechanisms within the systems and the effects on the minor’s behavior are comparable. From the data, one informant experienced that the number of meetings and the requirements that follow can, for some, be overwhelming and result in resisting. If the child or youth resist the JDB’s decision, the result can be re-offending and a re-hearing. This correlates with previous research on the CHS in terms of how the cumulative contact with the systems, such as JDB, the police, social services, and the youth probation services can result in a stigmatizing or criminalizing process. This can counteract the intention of reducing the criminal behavior among minors, and instead, increase criminal behavior.
However, it is important to mention that the JDB has had positive results in changing the behavior for some minors and some have been provided with helpful social support. But for those with a higher risk of developing a criminal lifestyle, the abovementioned is still relevant.
Opposing understandings of the JDB’s impact
The findings also showed that the professionals had very different perspectives and experiences with the JDB. One thing that stood out was the opposite
experiences regarding the JDB’s impact on the minor between the professionals involved in a meeting. The board members experience the JDB’s decision
as being received positive and constructive, while the caseworkers experience that the hardcore youths do not care about the JDB’s decision and are resistant,
continuing their criminal behavior. The differences between the board members and the caseworkers’ perception of the impact the JDB’s decisions had on the minor, can undermine the aim of the reform, with its focus on a unified approach across the social and legal system. This requires a thorough understanding of the different professional roles, knowledge, and experiences to establish a
collaboration focusing on the specific minor’s needs. The lack of a common understanding of how the JDB’s decisions impact the minors can cause a division between the board members and caseworkers. This division makes it difficult to
work across the justice system and social services, when the different
professionals present at a JDB meeting have different understandings of what the most effective support to change the criminal behavior is.
The data extraction regarding the re-hearings from 2020 showed that 34 % of the re-hearings were related to a minor’s re-offending after a rehabilitation program had previously been initiated. This indicates that the impact of the JDB’s
decisions is not as strong, since over one-third of the hearings concerns re-offending. When taking the challenges mentioned above into consideration, the misperception of the JDB’s impact on the minor’s criminal behavior can be seen as a cause of the relatively high number of re-hearings related to re-offending. Additionally, the long time from the crime had been committed until it was handled by the JDB, can also explain why the use of ‘immediate sanctions’ has been deficient. In 2019, of the 475 decisions made regarding a care plan for the 10-17-year-olds, only five decisions to use an immediate sanction were made (UKN, 2020). This affects the intention of a quick and consistent action to end the minor’s criminal behavior, as the consequence is too distant. The time between the crime and the JDB meeting also provides new opportunities to commit further crimes, if minors do not relate to any consequences of previous criminal behavior.
The perception of a juvenile justice system
The new focus on the 10-14-year-olds within a system with some resembles to a juvenile justice system has generated much debate, since these children are below the age of criminal responsibility. The intention with including the 10-14-year-olds is to emphasize that there are consequences when committing crimes,
including for those below the age of 15. Although, the JDB is not a juvenile court, however, the minors attending a meeting might perceive it as such. This provides an opportunity to draw on aspects from previous research regarding juvenile justice systems. Damm and colleagues’ (2017) study regarding the 20-month period where the age of criminal responsibility was lowered from 15 to 14 years old, showed no effect on deterrence. Even though the JDB is based on social support, the fact that the perception of a juvenile justice system is still present can affect the legitimacy of the JDB’s intention.
Including an age group below the age of 15 can be seen as a de facto lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years old. Children who previously would be processed under the Social Service Act are now being processed under the new Juvenile Delinquency Act. An example from the Danish Bar and Law Society (Hauerslev, 2021) illustrates one of the unexpected consequences of this. The case concerns a 12-year-old with ADHD, who was voluntarily removed from home under the Social Service Act. He got into a small conflict with a pedagogue during his placement and made an impulsive threat because he was not satisfied with the dinner that night. If he had been at home with his parents, he would have been told to behave himself. Instead, because of his living situation, he was referred to the JDB which changed his placement from voluntarily to mandatory under the Juvenile Delinquency Act (Haurslev, 2021). One of the consequences for this child is that he is now labeled a child with criminal behavior and is treated as such, even though, his problems were not crime-related but stemmed from other social issues. Changing the placement from voluntary to mandatory might generate more conflicts between the child and parents, as the collaboration and trust between the family and the social services might be damaged.
The fact that this child with the diagnosis ADHD is now treated as a child with criminal behavior, showcases the challenges and lack of protection of the rights of
the child for those with a psychiatric diagnosis aged 10-14. Had he been between 15-17 and tried in court, the presence of a psychiatric diagnosis is considered.
Positive experiences with the JDB
One significant improvement that came along with the JDB is the fact that financial aspects that may influence considerations by the municipalities are removed when deciding what the best care plan would be for the specific minor. Focusing on the minor and the necessary actions to end the criminal behavior regardless of the costs, along with the caseworkers’ obligations to implement the JDB’s decision, offers better opportunities to provide the best suitable care plan. The fact that the JDB makes the decisions, may also strengthen the social services relationship with the families. The caseworker can build a stronger relationship with the family when the double role in terms of providing social support to families, but also making decisions regardless of their consent according to the Social Service Act is removed.
Limitations and future research
This study has some limitations that are important to address, that affect the generalizability of the findings. As the JDB is a new concept in a Danish context, official evaluations and research relating to its effect are not yet available. In accordance, not much accessible data to process and analyze from a quantitative perspective have been accessible. Also, this study is conducted relatively early in the JDB existence, providing no opportunity to look at the development over several years. The need for further research on this topic is highly needed to evaluate the effect of the JDB.
The use of informants generated a subjective perspective on their experiences. Using subjective perspectives in a study, it is important to consider limitations, such as how the findings become difficult to generalize. Also, the number of informants was limited, and some informants shared the same professions. A more heterogeny group might have mirrored wider experiences and increased the validity of the findings.
Another aspect that could have been interesting to incorporate is the youth probation services as this is also a new role in a danish context, along with their roles as controllers. Other professionals such as lawyers, child experts, and even the children and youths themselves, could also be interesting to include in future research to broaden the perspective. The use of minors as informants would provide a more accurate picture of their perception, as the data would come from direct sources.
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to explore the professional’s experiences with the new working procedures that came with implementing the JDB. The findings revealed that the work is affected by several challenges that counteract the intention of the JDB and its underlying ideologies. Challenges like the protection of the child’s rights, how the JDB meeting impacts the minor, and the lack of handling minors with a psychiatric diagnosis are three of the main challenges found. Especially the perception of the JDB was found to play a major role in terms of how the JDB’s decision impacts the minor, as the minor might perceive the JDB as a juvenile
court and the decision as a sentence. This can label the minor as a criminal that can alter the minor’s self-perception as a criminal which may result in
re-offending. Another finding revealed the professionals’ different understandings of the most effective support to change the criminal behavior for the specific minor, complicating the work between the justice system and social services. Although the findings mainly consisted of challenges related to the JDB, the findings did reveal some positive improvements. These are important to highlight, as these are essential when exploring the new and improved working procedures.
The study also intended to examine to what extend the minors re-offend after having their case processed in the JDB. The data showed that over one-third of the re-hearings were related to re-offenses, which indicates that the care plan decided in the JDB meetings might not be as effective as intended.
Due to the short time, the JDB has been implemented, there is a high need for further long-time research on this topic to get a more general view of the JDB and its effect on deterring minors from crime.
REFERENCES
Becker, H. S. (2018). Outsiders. Simon & Schuster.
Bekendtgørelse af lov om fuldbyrdelse af straf m.v. (Straffuldbyrdelsesloven) (LBK nr 1333 af 09/12/2019). Justitsministeriet.
https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2019/1333
Bekendtgørelse af lov om social service (serviceloven). (LBK nr. 798 af 07/08/2019). Social- og Indenrigsministeriet.
https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2019/798
Bekendtgørelse af straffeloven (Straffeloven) (LBK nr. 1650 af 17/11/2020). Justitsministeriet. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/1650
Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, Life Chances, and Adult Crime: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention in Adolescence on Crime in Early Adulthood. Criminology, 41 (4), 1287-1318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01020.x
Børn og unge-udvalget. (2021, may 10). Børn- og unge-udvalg. https://www.kk.dk/b%C3%B8rn-og-unge-udvalget
Damm, A. P., Larsen, B. Ø., Nielsen, H. S., & Simonsen, M. (2017). Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility: Consequences for juvenile crime and education. Institut for Økonomi, Aarhus Universitet. Economics Working Papers 2017(10).
http://econ.au.dk/fileadmin/site_files/filer_oekonomi/Working_Papers/Economics /2017/wp17_10.pdf
Det Kriminalpræventive Råd [DKR] (2019, february 22). SSP-Samarbejde. https://dkr.dk/lokalt-samarbejde/ssp-samarbejde/
Hauerslev, H. (2021). Ung og Udsat. ADVOKATEN, (01-2021), 23-27.
https://flipflashpages.uniflip.com/3/609807/1117097/pub/html5.html#page/23 History of the System - SCRA. (2021, April 27)
https://www.scra.gov.uk/about-scra/history/
Jensen, E. L., & Metsger, L. K. (1994). A Test of the Deterrent Effect of
Legislative Waiver on Violent Juvenile Crime. Crime & Delinquency, 40(1), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128794040001007
Justitsministeriet (2017) Alle handlinger har konsekvenser – en reform af
indsatsen mod ungdomskriminalitet. (2017/18:3)
http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/sites/default/files/media/Pressemeddelelser/pdf/re form_ungdomskrimi_a4_30.pdf
Justitsministeriet (n.d.) Ud af kriminalitet og tilbage i trivsel – håndbog til
behandling af sager omfattet lov om bekæmpelse af ungdomskriminalitet.
https://ungdomskriminalitetsnaevnet.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ud-af- kriminalitet-og-tilbage-i-trivsel-haandbog-til-behandling-af-sager-omfattet-af-lov-om-bekaempelse-af-ungdomskriminalitet.pdf
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interview – Introduktion til et håndværk (2.udgave). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Kyvsgaard, B. (2004). Youth Justice in Denmark. Crime and Justice. 31, 349-390. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3488350
Lemert, E. (1972) Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control, 2nd. Prentice Hall
Liberman, A., Kirk, D., & Kim, K. (2014). Labeling effects of first juvenile arrests: secondary deviance and secondary sanctioning. Criminology. 52(3), 345-370. Doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12039
Lov om bekæmpelse om ungdomskriminalitet (Ungdomskriminalitetsloven), (LOV nr. 1705 af 27/12/2018). Justitsministeriet.
https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2018/1705
Mcara, L., & Mcvie, S. (2005). The usual suspects? Street-Life, Young Offenders and the Police. Criminal Justice. 5(1), 5-36. doi: 10.1177/1466802505050977 McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007). Youth justice? The impact of system contact on patterns of desistance from offending. European journal of criminology. 4(3), 315-345.
McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010). Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. Criminology & Criminal
Justice. 10(2), 179–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895809360971
Mehlbye, J. (2019). SSP-Samarbejdet - Kort opsamling af undersøgelse fra VIVE. VIVE - Det Nationale Forsknings- og Analysecenter for Velfærd.
https://www.vive.dk/media/pure/14614/3671567 Metodeguiden (2021). Fejlkilder ved interviews. https://metodeguiden.au.dk/fejlkilder-ved-interviews/
Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research. Strides In Development Of Medical
Education. 14(3). doi: 10.5812/sdme.67670
Newburn, T. (2017). Interactionalism and labelling theory. In Criminology (3rd.ed, p. 227-242). Routledge.
Risler, E. A., Sweatman, T., & Nackerud, L. (1998). Evaluating the Georgia Legislative Waiver’s Effectiveness in Deterring Juvenile Crime. Research on
Social Work Practice. 8(6), 657- 667.
Singer, S., & Mcdowall, D. (1988). Criminalizing delinquency: The deterrent effects of the New York juvenile offender law. Law & Society Review. 22, 521-536.
The children’s hearings system. (2021, April 27).
https://www.chscotland.gov.uk/about-us/the-children-s-hearings-system/ Ungdomskriminalitetsnævnet [UKN] (2020) Årsberetning 2019.
https://www.ungdomskriminalitetsnaevnet.dk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/aarsberetning-2019.pdf
Vetenskapsrådet. (2017). Good Research Practice. Retrieved from:
https://www.vr.se/download/18.5639980c162791bbfe697882/1555334908942/Go od-Research-Practice_VR_2017.pdf.
Wikström, P-O., & Torstensson, M. (1997). LOKALT BROTTSFÖREBYGGANDE
ARBETE - Organisation och inriktning. Polishögskolan - Forskningsenheten.
Retrieved from
http://www.svtstatic.se/image-cms/svtse/1504106251/svts/article14994616.svt/BINARY/PO%20Wikstr%C3%B 6ms%20f%C3%B6rslag.pdf
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Interview guide- Introduction
- The aim of the project:
o To examine the professional’s experiences with the JDB, especially in terms of how the JDB has changed working with children and youths with delinquent behavior. And to examine to what extend the child or youth re-offend after having a case processed in the JDB. The use of “genoptagelsessager” [re-hearings] is intended to indicate the effect the JDB’s effect on the child or youth’s delinquent behavior.
- What are your experiences with the Juvenile Delinquency Board (JDB)? o What role do you have in relation to the JDB?
§ How many cases have you worked at?
§ How are the different roles divided between the board members?
o What are your previous experiences working with children and youths?
§ How has your role changes after the JDB has been established?
§ Are there new frames you have to work within?
o Can the JDB be seen as an enhancement in the work with children and youths who commits crime?
- How do you experience the fact that the question of guilt is not considered for children between 10-14-year-old, but the decision is only based on a suspicion of a crime?
- Based on the 10-14-year-olds referral to the JDB because of a suspicion, and the 15-17-year-olds have their case processed at the court, how do you see these two groups in terms of their rights?
o How do you experience their rights being protected?
- What is your impression regarding how the children and youths experience being at a board meeting?
o Do they understand the process?
o Do you experience a difference in the impression the board has on the child or youth depended on their age?
o Do they understand the seriousness and the consequences of having their case processed at the JDB?
o What is your experience regarding the support for the child? - Do you prepare yourself differently for a case dependent on the age of the
child or youth?
- How do you experience the child or youth experience the effect, in relation to their criminal behavior?
o Do they care? Are they motivated to change their behavior etc.? - How do you experience the parents experience the JDB meeting?
