OVER-POLICING DISTORTS JUVENILE CRIME PICTURE

THE first part of a special feature on Juveniles in Justice was nothing if
not sensational. No less than a full two-page spread headed Young,
Neglected and Out of Control gave the distinct impression that we are
facing a crisis of epidemic proportions if juvenile crime is not contained,
and quickly.

The main article, by Roy Eccleston, quotes four (male) criminologists who
confirm the majority of crimes committed by juveniles are of the nuisance
variety and that few young people actually engage in or repeat offending
behaviours. In fact, juvenile crime in some areas, according to the
official statistles, has actually declined over recent years.

So it appears what is being talked about is the "hard core" of 5 to 10 per
cent of offenders who commit serious offences. Given that this percentage
is part of less than 1.5 per cent of the youth population who find
themselves in the criminal justice system, we are talking about fractional
numbers, indeed.

The article asserts (misleadingly) that criminologists will welcome the $8
million being pumped by the Federal Government into "early intervention"
programs for "at risk" offenders. Unfortunately, little detail of what
might make up such a program is provided.

However, if we take seriously Professor Ross Homel's astounding correlation
between mothers smoking during pregnancy and the cretion of a potentially
criminogenic dad, then it is clear what the strategy of "womb to the
classroom" might mean.

The emphasis on "early intervention" and "at risk" offenders and families
reflects a number of recycled ways of thinking about the juvenile crime
problem. We continue to focus on street crime and the idiosyncrasies of the
urban poor rather than on the usually far more serious misdemeanors of
corporate executives and other white-collar offenders.

No one, for example, equates the boutique cigar-smoking of boardroom
executive fathers with the potential to create a crime-prone child. Perhaps
the real question is not the smoking habits of single parents or even the
domestic nuances of "dysfunctional" or "problem families", but rather
governmental neglect and the over-policing of certain problem populations.

RICHARD HIL Lecturer In Justice Studies Queensland University of Technology

JUDITH BESSANT Senior Lecturer, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne

I WAS intrigued by the front-page article New Path To Stop Juvenile Crime
(7/12) suggesting that a mother's smoking during pregnancy may cause
criminal behaviour later in her child's life.

I would like to see the Griffith University study that apparently
demonstrated this result. A 1988 study by Di Sansom of the ACT Department
of Community Services found that single parents smoke more and have poorer
health than the rest of the community. Have the Queensland researchers
considered whether single motherhood, rather than smoking, causes
delinquency in children?

In these irrational days of political correctness, it is an offence to
discriminate on the basis of marital status. Sociological studies often do
not distinguish between cohabiting couples and those who have made a
binding commitment to each other in marriage. I urge the university
researchers to analyse their results on this basis.

A British study has found that children are safest when living with two
natural, married parents. The child-abuse risk for children living with two
natural cohabiting parents is 20 times greater. The risk for children
living with their natural mother and her cohabiting boyfriend is 33 times
greater.

I suspect that absence of parental marital commitment may be a major factor
in child delinquency also.

LINDSAY DENT Campbelltown, SA

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski