During the 1990s, many jurisdictions introduced police cautions as an alternative to referral to court for juveniles committing comparatively minor offences. The policy was motivated by a concern that contact with the court system for such offenders might be criminogenic. In recent years, however, elected officials have criticised police cautions as a ‘soft option’ and this (in some jurisdictions at least) has led to a decline in their use. Past research has often failed to ensure that the comparison group for a police caution consists of children referred to court who could have received a police caution. The current study overcomes this problem and employs a rigorous set of procedures for minimising the risk of selection bias. Our results indicate that cautioning young offenders who have committed comparatively minor offences and who have not previously been referred to court results in a lower risk of reoffending than referral to court. We conclude that restrictions on the use of cautions in these circumstances could increase the risk of juvenile reoffending.
AllardT.StewartA.SmithC.DennisonS.ChrzanowskiA.ThompsonC. (2014).
The monetary cost of offender trajectories: Findings from Queensland (Australia). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
47(1), 81–101.
2.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Information paper: An introduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). Catalogue no. 2039.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
3.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC). Catalogue no. 1216.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
4.
BarrickK. (2014). A review of prior tests of labelling theory. In FarringtonD. P.MurrayJ. (Eds.), Labelling theory: Empirical tests (pp. 89–112).
London, UK:
Transaction Publishers.
5.
BeckerG. S. (1968).
Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy,
76(2), 169–217.
6.
BeckerH. (1973). Outsiders.
New York, NY:
Free Press.
7.
BushwayS. D.ApelR. J. (2010). Instrumental variables in criminology and criminal justice. In PiqueroA. R.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 595–612).
New York, NY:
Springer.
8.
ChallingerD. (1981).
Comparison of official warnings and court appearances for young offenders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
14, 165–169.
9.
CunninghamT. (2007). Pre-court diversion in the Northern Territory: Impact on juvenile reoffending. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 339.
Canberra:
Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi339
10.
DennisonS.StewartA.HurrenE. (2006). Police cautioning in Queensland: The impact on juvenile offending pathways. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice no. 306.
Canberra:
Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi306.
11.
EhrlichI. (1973).
Participation in illegitimate activities: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Political Economy,
81, 521–565.
12.
FarringtonD. P. (1977).
The effects of public labelling. British Journal of Criminology,
17(2), 112–125.
13.
FarringtonD. P.BennettT. (1981).
Police cautioning of juveniles in London. British Journal of Criminology,
21, 123–135.
14.
FarringtonD. P.MurrayJ. (2014). Empirical tests of labelling theory in criminology. In FarringtonD. P.MurrayJ. (Eds.), Labelling theory. Empirical tests (pp. 1–9).
London, UK:
Transaction Publishers.
15.
FarringtonD. P.OsbornS. G.WestD. J. (1978).
The persistence of labelling effects. British Journal of Criminology,
18(3), 277–284.
16.
FunkJ. M.WestreichD.WiesenC.SturmerT., BrookhartM. A.DavidianM. (2011).
Doubly robust estimation of causal effects. American Journal of Epidemiology,
173(7), 761–767.
HuaJ.FitzgeraldJ. (2006). Matching court records to measure reoffending. Crime and Justice Bulletin 95.
Sydney, Australia:
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Retrieved from http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb95.pdf
19.
KrausJ. (1981).
Police caution of juvenile offenders: A research note. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
14, 91–94.
20.
LemertE. (1972). Human deviance, social problems, and social control (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
21.
LittleS. B. (2015).
Impact of police diversion on re-offending by young people (PhD thesis), School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arts, Education and Law, Griffith University, Australia.
22.
MottJ. (1983).
Police decisions for dealing with young offenders. British Journal of Criminology,
23(3), 249–262.
23.
NaginD.CullenF.JonsonC. (2009). Imprisonment and re-offending. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol.
38, pp. 115–200).
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
24.
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2018). Unpublished data. Retrieved from the author on request.
PetrosinoA.Turpin-PetrosinoC.GuckenburgS. (2014). The impact of juvenile system processing on delinquency. In FarringtonD. P.MurrayJ. (Eds.), Labelling theory: Empirical tests (pp. 113–147).
London, UK:
Transaction Publishers.
VignaendraS.FitzgeraldJ. (2006). Reoffending among young people cautioned by police or who participated in a youth justice conference. Crime and Justice Bulletin 103.
Sydney, Australia:
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
33.
WeatherburnD.McGrathA.BartelsL. (2012).
Three dogmas of juvenile justice. University of New South Wales Law Journal,
35(3), 779–809.
