In my experience as a worker on the ground, and that is really how I define myself, when a decision is made by a judge about an offence, the nature and circumstances of the offence are important, but we want the decision to be one what will give the young person an incentive to change their behaviour, we have to take all of the circumstances into account. We cannot simply apply a mathematical formula.
Take the example of two similar offences committed in very different circumstances by young people who have very different needs. In one case, there has to be fairly harsh punishment, because the young person's entire profile and record indicate persistent criminal behaviour, somewhat as the gentleman said. That kind of situation calls for time. Persistent delinquency involves time. But if the same offence is committed by a person who actually acted in accidental or unique circumstances, for example because of mental health reasons, we are not talking about the same needs.
In those circumstances, if judges are required to apply a principle that results in them automatically doing legal math, that is, ruling that this crime means that sentence, they cannot take individual differences into account. That is why we use the differential approach as a tool when dealing with young offenders. We want to determine who we are dealing with, what the needs are, why that young person, specifically, is committing crimes. We can then tailor interventions that will bear fruit, that will really lead the young person to get out of crime. In that situation, everyone wins.