I'm just wondering if the system we use for young people should be an adversarial one. I sometimes think it gets in the way of justice when you have long delays caused by defence lawyers, just because they know that the kids are going to get time and a half if they've been in remand for a long time, and things like that.
I go way back to the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. At that point the focus of the system was different. It had to do what was best for the individual child or adolescent. Certainly there were faults with that system, but there were some strong points too. I think the faults in the system were really there because people weren't really trained or qualified to maybe look at things at that point the way they should have. I really wonder if we've actually done a disservice because we got into the adversarial system. Each side has to make the strongest case and exaggerate it. It's a fight rather than just saying “How can we really affect this child?”
As long as we have an adversarial system we won't be able to really look at that. That might lead to a solution to some of these grey areas, where you can take a look at a person and say, “What is the chance of this person being rehabilitated? Is this person way too far? Is there too much of a danger to society?”
You can't just sort of sit down and contemplate that. There are arguments on both sides, and you sort of wonder if justice is really being served at that point.