Why Australia must choose Norway over the U.S.

Gerry Georgatos is very important to understand them if they are going to progress in the direction of Australia.

Norway’s Children’s Justice System It was widely accepted As one of the most progressive and challenging rights in the world. Basically, it is shaped by the deep commitment of the country. Child’s rights agreement (CRCand wider social democratic welfare model. These foundations do not position young people as state control objects, but as solid active stakeholders who are the center of justice processes of justice processes. They go to the heart of verification.

Norway, CRCEmphasizing the child’s best interests, the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives independently, and the importance of justice, education and proportionality. Welfare Systems. The approach based on these inclusive rights is in a broader social justice paradigm that guarantees universal access to health services, education, mental health support and child welfare services that reflect the view that childhood welfare is a collective responsibility.

Academics who examine the Norwegian model, not only react to crime, but also reduce the likelihood of developing the conditions of development of young people and thus being accused.

At the center of Norway’s children’s justice system, there is a strong commitment to rehabilitation and restoration for punishment, transformation. The age of minimum criminal responsibility is determined as 15 years and it enables younger children to be handled through child welfare systems instead of criminal courts. The minimum age in the United States varies between 50 states, it is as low as eight and best 12, it is a state as low as six years of age.

For those aged 15 to 17 years in Norway, the response to disturbing behaviors is primarily preventive and restorative. Two basic sanctions are dominated by the frame: UNGDOMSSTRFor youth penalty and UNGDOMSOPPFøLGINGOr youth follow.

In 2014, the youth sentence was introduced as a comprehensive sanction for serious child crimes. Repair conference pairs of usually carried out through Norway’s mediation boards ConflicttrådetWith an individualized follow -up plan with education, family support, therapy and close control by youth coordinators. For less serious disturbing, youth follow -up, school continuation, consultancy and parental participation provides structured surveillance and gives priority to rehabilitation in imprisonment.

. Conflicttrådet Play a very important role in ensuring that the repairing practices are buried in Norway’s child’s reaction. These community -based mediation boards bring together victims, criminals, families and other stakeholders in a dialogue designed to repair damage, promote accountability and agree on meaningful results. He also uses Norway BarnahOr as special facilities that provide a safe, child -friendly environment for coordination between children’s houses, judicial interviews, medical examinations and welfare and justice agencies.

This model minimizes the trauma of repeated inquiry and frightening institutional environments and allows children to participate in the processes that affect them (Barnah model). Even when detention is necessary, Norway depends on the principle of normality in which deprivation of freedom is the only punishment and all other rights and privileges are protected as much as possible. Detention is rare designed to reflect normal living conditions to maximize the probability of short and re -integration.

Although Norway’s Children’s Justice Model has been appreciated internationally, it has faced difficulties in Oslo, especially in Oslo. Since 2016, he has experienced an increase in youth crimes, including capital, gang recruitment, violence and drug -related crimes. In 2024 and 2025, the general youth crime rates began the plateau, but the rate of crimes related to violence and hatred remained uncomfortable. The reports revealed that approximately 7,700 youth crime incidents were recorded in Oslo in 2024 and sudden increases in marginal urban regions were recorded.

These developments have led to calls for strengthened early intervention strategies for children in immigrant and low -income communities with high risk of exclusion. Norway’s national supervisor and child ombudsman criticized the insufficient scale of preventive programming and called on the government to expand services in vulnerable neighborhoods.

In response, Norway has brought a series of measured reforms between 2024 and mid -2025. These reforms gave more discretion to the courts for unconditional detention in the most serious children’s cases for up to six months, brought electronic monitoring for compliance when necessary, and fast -swatched Youth Courts for Fast Monitoring Procedures. The consent of young people and preservatives to consent to the implementation of young people, although the right to object and decision -making have been strengthened.

These changes are controversial in some neighborhoods, accompanied by concerns that the system is at risk of erosing the rehabilitation morality, but the reforms were carefully limited and designed to prevent excessive punishment. I do not discuss whether I agree with them; On the contrary, I describe it.

However, the contrast could not be sharper compared to the US’s “difficult to crime” approach. The US continues to be one of the only two countries in the world. CRC (US Department of State) and states between states and a significant change of a fragmented child is a framework for justice. Many states do not have a minimum age of criminal responsibility, and those who do so can determine or put it as eight or ten years old.

The United States is also the only nation in the world that still sentences children to imprisonment without conditional evacuation. Detention is common and conditions are often hard and adult -like, as shown by the work of young people held in adult correction environments. Restorative Justice initiatives continue to be peripheral rather than being the center with pilot programs that are present in the scattered judicial zone but rarely integrated into the main and child justice systems.

The Norway model shows that a justice system can hold young people responsible for harmful behaviors and give priority to their long -term development and re -integrations. The system is deeply between sectors that integrate the work of child welfare, mental health, educational and community organizations. Preventive efforts begin early through universal services and targeted programs that deal with the structural driving forces of the crime.

The hearing of children, maintaining relations with family and society and accessing support, not optional, is inseparable. This holistic design helps to explain Norway’s exceptional low -child imprisonment and re -accusation rates.

The Norwegian experience also shows that the maintenance of a rehabilitation system requires continuous alertness. The rising youth crime in Oslo and elsewhere created political and public pressure to become more punishing. The difficulty for Norway will be to expand the restorative infrastructure in marginal communities and to ensure that mediation boards and school -based restorative initiatives reach the most exclusionary risk.

There is an urgent need to monitor the effect of new application measures such as electronic monitoring and expanded detention to ensure that they do not weaken the rehabilitative heart of the system. Independent assessments managed by Children’s Rights Institutions shall be required to protect against the dragging of tasks.

Courses for the United States are open and urgent. To approve CRC And the adoption of a child’s justice code based on consistent rights, a logical criminal responsibility age, eliminating life sentences for children, and will provide a framework for arrogant, restorative measures to the center of the system.

Developing Child Friendly Facilities modeled in Norway Barnah The victim will reduce trauma for children with witnesses or accused. Investing in poverty, mental health needs and educational participation will prevent many children from entering the justice system.

Norway’s Children’s Justice System indicates that another way is possible: accountability is not synonymous with the punishment and that every child’s dignity and potential is recognized. While Norwegian Oslo and contemporary challenges around other places, he continues to offer a strong example of how to balance the model with social justice.

The United States can give young people the opportunity to repair damage, rebuilding lives and contribute to their communities by moving away from criminal practices and adopting a rehabilitative philosophy of rights.

Australia has 17 children’s prisons and 115 adults. In existing trends, Australian prisons will be at least doubled by 2040. Australia may go to Norway’s way to follow the united, one -way street of the United States.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf3nyuooip0

Gerry Georgatos is an experimental focus on social justice and suicide prevention and poverty researcher.

Support independent journalism subscribe to IA.