Wang, J., & Weatherburn, D. (2018). Are police cautions a soft option? Reoffending among juveniles cautioned or referred to court. Australian & New Zealand Journal Of Criminology, 000486581879423. doi: 10.1177/0004865818794235
This article written by Wang et al (2018), studies the correlation between Police caution as a soft option and reoffending among juveniles cautioned or referred to court in Australia and New Zealand. Based on the previous research in the same field, Wang et.al argue that previous research did not provide solid evidence to reveal the relationship between the two variables because the comparison group for a police caution consisted of children referred to court without receiving a police caution. However, current studies they reviewed designate that cautioning young offenders who have committed relatively minor crimes and those who have not been referred to court results in a lower risk of reoffending than referral to court. Wang et.al conclude that restrictions in the use of cautions in such situations could elevate the chances of reoffending juveniles. In their study, Wang et.al aim to ascertain a functional form of correlation.
A sample totalling 19, 739 eligible juveniles was used in this study (Wang et.al, 2018). Among them were 19, 123 juveniles with police caution compared with 616 juveniles with court referral, but all were eligible for a police caution. Individuals were excluded on the basis of the number of cautions (three or more previous precautions), pleaded not guilty at their index of contact, conviction of or pleaded guilty to an omitted offense, dealt with a court but had been previously cautioned, previously dealt with court, and those charged with rare felonies. Data analyses are done in four sets. The first one is simple logistic model for reoffending against the treatment variable in reference to controls.
The second set is done by repeating the analysis by use of inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), giving a weight to each observation in the treatment, ensuring the covariates and treatments are independent. In the third set, the weights in IPTW are stabilized by dividing the weight by unconditional probability of being in the control group, to produce a smaller variance. The final set applies the double robust model, which involves combination of outcome regression with model for treatment exposure to provide an estimate of the effect of an exposure on an outcome, thus, valid information is obtained (Wang et.al, 2018). Results from the study revealed that cautioning juvenile offenders who had committed comparatively minor offences and those who had not previously been referred to court results in reduced rate of repeating a similar felony than court referral, agreeing with previous review done by Petrosino et.al (2014), although there is a deviation which does not involve any type of treatment.
Strengths of this study include a large representative sample to the entire Australian population, large control groups and application of measures that are standardized (Wang, et.al, 2018). However, the study has various limitations such as dependence of the propensity score-based methods on the three assumptions and a single source of data (ROD-reoffending database) that is maintained by NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. As noted by the researcher, assuming that all participants have a non-zero probability of receiving treatment will create bias towards low reoffending rate being found among those individuals that have been cautioned by police officers (Petrosino et.al, 2014). This may interfere with the actual results of the study.
This study will be used in the future essay to justify the presence of correlation between cautioning juvenile offenders and referral to court in terms of reducing the rate of committing similar crimes again. The outcome from the study provide solid evidence that proves cautioning juvenile offenders who had committed comparatively minor crimes and who had not previously been referred to court results in reduced rate of repeating the similar offence than court referral. Since the journal article has been published in 2018, the research is considered consistent and a current source. In addition, the researchers are experienced and they work with NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research of Australia.
Annotated Bibliography
Bates, L., Darvell, M., & Watson, B. (2016). Young and unaffected by road policing strategies: Using deterrence theory to explain provisional drivers’ (non)compliance. Australian & New Zealand Journal Of Criminology, 50(1), 23-38. doi: 10.1177/0004865815589824
This article written by Bates el.al (2016), applies deterrence theory to examine the observation of young drivers to the implementation of general road rules especially those related to GDL in Australia and New Zealand. This comes to attention after Bates and his colleagues realized that newly licenced drivers do not conform to GDL related general road rules designed to enhance road safety. According to previous investigations, increased nonconformity on the road is due to too much time spent on the road, emboldening outcome, and potential conceptual limitations concerning prevention variables investigated in the research. Bates et.al (2014) conclude that the most influential factors leading to nonconformity include previous exposure to parental enforcement and licence type (P2). However, Bates and his team look forward to come up with the most acceptable explanation to the cause of noncompliance on the road by young drivers.
The total sample was 236 eligible participants aged between 17-24 years (Bates, 2016). All of them were handed a questionnaire evaluating their perception of various prevention mechanisms and their observance with both general and GDL specific regulations. Selection of participants was done via email lists used by Queensland University of Technology and the Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, undergraduate psychology student pool, and flyers. For convenience, each participant was previewed about the study on their original screen of assessment. The study was permitted by QUT Human Research Committee (1300000542) to be done between 11 October 2013 and 20 June 2014 (Bates, 2016). A revised form of the BYNDS was used to measure no compliance. Vicarious deterrent experiences, and formal and informal deterrence were measured using specific composite scales.
Various statistical data analyses were performed. To establish the existing variances between the type of driver on all compliance and deterrence-related variables, independent t-tests were carried out. Furthermore, a series of hierarchical multiple regressions were done to investigate the effect of deterrence variables on various types of road rule compliance. The final regression analyses provided description for the discrepancy in all the three forms of noncompliance, although they were pretty low.
The strengths of the survey include a relatively large sample that is representative of the entire Australian population, existing studies with a similar conclusion, and use of standardized measures. However, the study had various limitations. The sample population was relatively large, however, the population was dominated by psychology students from the University. Moreover, independent variables were unreliable, and inconsistent literature and diffuse use of terminology could have a negative impact on results.
To sum up, the study findings suggest that GDL system increases road rule disobedience among drivers with P2 license. It also suggests that parents can be used as a strategic remedy in reduction of road rule violation by younger drivers. The article was accepted and published in 2016, hence, it can be used as source material. A future study is proposed to investigate why certain restriction mechanisms have influence, while others have no significant role in reducing young driver’s nonconformity with road rule and GDL specific regulations.
References
Bates, L., Darvell, M., & Watson, B. (2016). Young and unaffected by road policing strategies: Using deterrence theory to explain provisional drivers’ (non)compliance. Australian & New Zealand Journal Of Criminology, 50(1), 23-38. doi: 10.1177/0004865815589824
Bates, L., Allen, S., Armstrong, K., Watson, B., & King, M. J. (2014). Graduated driver licensing: An international review. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, 14, e432–e441.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2014). The impact of juvenile system processing on delinquency. In D. P. Farrington & J. Murray (Eds.), Labelling theory: Empirical tests (pp. 113–147). London, UK: Transaction Publishers
Wang, J., & Weatherburn, D. (2018). Are police cautions a soft option? Reoffending among juveniles cautioned or referred to court. Australian & New Zealand Journal Of Criminology, 000486581879423. doi: 10.1177/0004865818794235
