This article explores the underlying explanations of the high reliance on pre-trial detention of children across contemporary Western societies, with a particular focus on the Netherlands. Empirical research findings are used to identify patterns and functions of pre-trial detention in the administration of youth justice. In addition, two driving forces behind pre-trial detention decision-making are explored after scrutinizing the penological underpinnings of youth justice and youth crime control in Western societies. Ultimately, the article addresses to what extent and how international children’s rights standards can effectively protect child suspects and accused from excessive, unlawful and arbitrary pre-trial detention.

Equality is a fundamental principle, also in youth justice. Nevertheless, children from ethnic minorities, children with disabilities and children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are vastly overrepresented in youth detention populations across the globe. This article combines interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives and empirical findings from interviews with practitioners from two English youth courts to explore the meaning, perceptions and implications of the principle of equality in the specific context of the youth court. Ultimately, this article presents the first contours of a conceptual model of equality in the youth court, which aims to inform policy, practice and future research.

No abstract

The right to counsel of juveniles at the stage of police interrogations has gained significant attention since the Salduz ruling of the European Court on Human Rights in 2008. The legislative and policy developments that have taken place since then and that are still ongoing -both on a regional (European) and domestic (Dutch) level -reveal a shared belief that juvenile suspects must be awarded special protection in this phase of the criminal justice proceedings. This calls for a youth-specific approach as fundamentally different from the common approach for adults. At the same time, there seems to be ambivalence concerning the justification and concrete implications of such a youth-specific approach. This article aims to clarify the underlying rationale and significance of a youth specific approach to the right to counsel at the stage of police interrogations on the basis of an interdisciplinary analysis of European Court on Human Rights case law, international children's rights standards and relevant developmental psychological insights. In addition, this article aims to position this right of juveniles in conflict with the law in the particular context of the Dutch juvenile justice system and provide concrete recommendations to the Dutch legislator.

The disproportionate use of remand detention (i.e. pre-trial detention) for vulnerable and marginalized youth is an issue of concern globally and demographic disparities in youth remand decision outcomes have been found in many jurisdictions, including England and the Netherlands. This article aims to explore and identify potential catalysts of disparity in the collective process of remand decision-making in youth courts. Drawing from Ulmer’s ‘inhabited institutions’ perspective, and the related ‘court community model’ and ‘focal concerns model’, and empirical findings from research in Dutch and English youth remand courts, this article suggests that several distinctive mechanisms and features of the youth remand decision-making process might function as catalysts of disparity. The findings indicate that the focus on ‘risk’ and ‘welfare needs’, the distinctive context defined by time constraints, limited information, shortages of readily available services, interdependency and interdisciplinary, and high stakes, combined with the profoundly human nature of courtroom workgroup decision-making, make the remand decision-making process in youth courts particularly prone to producing unwarranted disparities. Ultimately, informed by the theoretical perspectives and empirical findings, the article provides insights into how and why disparities might occur in youth remand decisions and offers suggestions for policy, practice and future research.