The prevalence of mental illness in young people in custody over time: a comparison of three surveys in New South Wales.

Few studies have examined the prevalence of mental illness in young people over time within the same jurisdiction. In the current study, we compared data from three large surveys of youth in custody in New South Wales, conducted in 2003, 2009 and 2015. We examined rates of mental illness, self-harm and suicidal behaviours, substance use and childhood trauma and found little consistent change over time, though some fluctuations were observed regarding certain mental illnesses and substance use. We also descriptively compared findings with observed rates for the general population and found that young people in custody showed higher levels of all examined variables. In sum, these data suggest little improvement in the well-being of young people in custody in New South Wales over time. Better identification and treatment of these issues are vital if young people are to be prevented from becoming enmeshed in the criminal justice system.

Youth custody is no place for mentally ill children and young people.

OBJECTIVE: We review issues with incarcerating mentally ill children and young people in Australia, highlighting key demographics, rates of mental disorders, consideration of brain development, developmental trauma and children's experiences of custody. METHODS: Population relevant literature will be outlined as applicable. RESULTS: Children and adolescents in custody have high rates of mental illness, cognitive impairment and comorbid diagnoses. Childhood adversity and trauma impacts on psychosocial development from an early age. Almost half of all young people in custody are First Nations children, a 20 times over-representation. Youth custody is frequently experienced as an additional trauma for young people. Mental health diversion into community treatment is effective and reduces costs to young people, their families, communities and society generally. CONCLUSION: Youth custody is an inappropriate setting for children and young people with mental disorders, and can be further traumatising. Economic and health benefits for mental health diversion away from youth custody are manifest.

Old enough to offend but not to buy a hamster: the argument for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Australia is 10 years. The topic of raising the age of criminal responsibility remains a fraught and challenging field of both study and thought. Despite overwhelming evidence to support an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility, there remains a resolute opposition in the majority of States in Australia that this age should be raised. However, the grounds for reconsidering the current position are indeed compelling. This paper expounds the persuasive arguments for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility by examining the current scientific evidence and opinion. Considerations are explored and the relevant literature examined using the author's framework that decisions should be just, scientific, not racist, humane, cost-effective and generally not ludicrous. Principles for an alternative approach to criminalisation and for managing the harmful behaviour of children are then offered.

Psychiatric impairment ratings in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: It is accepted practice in Australia and New Zealand for psychiatric impairment rating scales to be applied for persons claiming psychiatric injury. These scales were derived for adults, not children. There is less clarity as to whether and how these scales may be applied for children claiming psychiatric injury. METHODS: We review Australian and New Zealand guidelines and methods for assessing permanent psychiatric impairment, as they apply to children and adolescents. RESULTS: With significant caution, psychiatric impairment rating scales can be administered for children. Guidance and recommendations in this regard are provided. For some, the effects of psychiatric injury may not be stable, and permanent impairment assessment should be delayed until sufficient maturity occurs. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric impairment rating scales are widely applied for adults claiming psychiatric injury, however caution must be exercised when these scales are used in children.