Inequality is one of the most fundamental and urgent challenges in the field of youth justice. Children from ethnic minorities, children with a low socioeconomic status, children with disabilities and – more generally – boys (compared to girls) are vastly overrepresented in many youth justice systems worldwide, particularly in youth prisons and detention centres (Nowak, 2019). Evidence suggests that this overrepresentation is fueled by inequalities in law enforcement and youth justice decision-making practices (Van den Brink et al., 2022). Especially in the United States, there is a vast body of research on racial disparities in youth justice decision-making, providing evidence that racial minority children – particularly Black boys – are more likely to be arrested, charged, remanded and sentenced to custody than their White peers in similar circumstances (Delone and Delone, 2017; Kurlychek and Johnson, 2019; Rodriguez, 2010; cf. Zane and Pupo, 2021). Also in European jurisdictions (e.g. England & Wales, the Netherlands), there is growing evidence that ethnic minority children, children with a low socioeconomic status and children with neurodiversity needs experience disadvantages at multiple stages of the youth justice process and are more likely to end up in custody (Van den Brink, 2022a; Webster, 2018). In Australia and Canada, research suggests that children from Indigenous communities are targeted disproportionately and treated more harshly by the justice system (Jackson, 2015; McGrath, 2016). Furthermore, inequality in youth justice practices is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to the Global North. Although less data and research are available, racial or ethnic inequalities in youth justice practices have also been reported in the Global South, for example in Brazil (Rezende Melo, 2022). This is also true for socioeconomic inequalities in youth justice practices, which have been studied and found in, for instance, India (Ali and Ganguly, 2022), Ghana (Ame, 2019) and Mexico (Azaola, 2018). Overall, notwithstanding the limitations of the available data and research (or the lack thereof) and the profound – historical, cultural, social, legal and institutional – differences between jurisdictions and their youth justice systems, it is clear that inequalities in the administration of youth justice are a global issue of concern.

The identified inequalities in youth justice decision-making are seemingly at odds with the principle of non-discrimination under Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The principle of non-discrimination is recognized by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2003: para. 12) as one of the CRC’s ‘general principles’ and aims to guarantee ‘equal access of children to [all their] rights’, including the rights laid down in Articles 40 and 37 CRC that are particularly relevant to youth justice (Van den Brink, 2022b). In essence, non-discrimination and equality are two sides of the same coin. Equality refers to the positive dimension of promoting children’s equal protection and exercise of rights, while non-discrimination refers to the negative absence of discrimination, prohibiting ‘treating similar situations differently without an objective justification’ to prevent unlawful impairments to children’s equal protection and exercise of rights (Arnardóttir, 2003: 6–8; Besson, 2005: 434–435; Van den Brink, 2022b). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2003) makes clear that the principle of equality and non-discrimination does not entail the identical treatment of all children. Instead, the Committee urges States to actively seek to identify ‘individual children and groups of children for whom the recognition and realization of their rights may require special measures’ (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2003: para. 12). Equality is, thus, inherently connected to the concept of diversity. Pursuing the equal recognition and realization of rights requires moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach by acknowledging the diversity of children’s circumstances, capacities and needs, which should be taken into account in youth justice responses to offending by children (Van den Brink, 2022b).

Equality in the context of youth justice entails first of all that children in conflict with the law – regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, disability, socioeconomic or other status – are equally entitled to a youth justice response which is appropriate to their wellbeing and proportionate to their circumstances and the offence (Art. 40 (4) CRC). This requires equal access to suitable diversion programmes (Art. 40 (3) (b) CRC) and community-based interventions (Art. 40 (4) CRC), to ensure for all children that deprivation of liberty is used only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time (Art. 37(b) CRC). Equality in youth justice also requires the equal realization of the child’s right to a fair trial (Art. 40 (2) CRC), including their right to effectively participate in the youth justice process (see also Art. 12 CRC). This calls for establishing child-appropriate procedures with sufficient due process safeguards for all children but also requires a tailored approach, taking into account the individual child’s age, evolving capacities, neurodiversity needs and language skills. Furthermore, equality in youth justice demands that children who are subject to youth justice interventions are given equal opportunities – if necessary by means of treatment, assistance and guidance – to successfully reintegrate and assume a constructive role in society (art. 40 (1) CRC), which ultimately also benefits public safety. This, too, requires a tailored approach when making decisions about imposing suitable youth justice interventions, taking into account the child’s circumstances, evolving capacities, needs and interests, without disregarding the proportionality and fair trial requirements.

The aforementioned evidence of significant and widespread racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and other inequalities in youth justice processes, however, suggests that the normative ideal of equal youth justice under the CRC does not reflect the lived realities of many justice system-involved children. The reality is that often the most vulnerable and marginalized children struggle with effectively exercising their fair trial rights and end up in custody disproportionately. As a result, children who are already socially disadvantaged are most exposed to the potentially harmful implications of youth justice system contact, including the detrimental impact of deprivation of liberty (Goldson and Kilkelly, 2013) and the stigma of criminal accusation and conviction (Van ‘t Zand-Kurtovic, 2017). This can have far-reaching negative effects on these children’s wellbeing, long-term health and future opportunities in education and the labour market, which imposes additional barriers to obtaining a constructive role in society (cf. Arts. 40 (1) and (4) CRC) and ultimately reinforces and deepens societal inequality (Laub, 2018; Webster, 2018).

Therefore, there is an urgent and global need to develop and implement principled and evidence-based strategies to address and tackle inequalities in youth justice practices. In some jurisdictions, policies aimed at reducing youth justice inequalities have been implemented, but a comprehensive, rights-based global strategy is still absent. Developing and implementing such a strategy calls for (1) more data and knowledge on the prevalence and nature of inequalities and their underlying sources and mechanisms and (2) more awareness of, and guidance on, the meaning and implications of the principle of equality in youth justice internationally.

First, effectively addressing inequalities in youth justice processes requires sufficient data and solid research-informed knowledge on the issue. Systematic data-collection tools are key to identify structural inequalities in youth justice decisions and to monitor reform. In the United States, for example, systematic data collection on racial or ethnic disparities is an integral part of their federal youth justice policy (OJJDP, 2019). Ideally, data collection and analyses do not just focus on identifying inequalities associated with defendants’ race, ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic status in isolation but also shed light on possible intersections of disadvantage, for instance, being minority ethnic and poor (Kurlychek and Johnson, 2019; cf. Hurtado, 2017). Many countries, however, still lack systematic data collection on (in)equality in their youth justice policies (Webster, 2018), even though the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2019: paras. 113–114, 2022: para. 10) urges States to do so.¹ Moreover, there is a need for innovative, multidisciplinary, cross-national research into how inequalities in youth justice practices are produced and sustained. This question is still strikingly underexplored in scholarly research (cf. Lynch, 2019; Ulmer, 2019; Van den Brink, 2022a). Capturing underlying sources and mechanisms of inequality in youth justice decisions through research requires deploying a broad lens, looking beyond a single decision point in the youth justice process and beyond the youth justice system itself. Indeed, inequalities might permeate multiple subsequent decisions across the youth justice process (Kurlychek and Johnson, 2019) and are often inherently connected to wider and structural societal inequalities and to children’s experienced disadvantages in interlocking systems, such as the educational system and child welfare system (Dowd, 2018). Cross-national comparative research designs could particularly contribute to developing a global strategy, as those studies could generate knowledge on potential ‘system-independent’ and ‘system-specific’ mechanisms of inequality in youth justice practices (Van den Brink and Lanskey, 2024). Importantly, more research should focus on understudied jurisdictions, particularly in the Global South, including those with plural justice systems and Indigenous customary justice practices (cf. Sowatey and Pinkrah, 2022). Moreover, it is crucial that research projects also actively involve children with lived experience in the justice system – in a child-appropriate manner – to learn from their views and experiences (cf. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2019, para. 115).

Second, more awareness of, and guidance on, the meaning and implications of the principle of equality and non-discrimination under the CRC at the international level could help prioritize and inform strategies to address inequalities in youth justice processes at the domestic and local levels. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child could play a leading role in this. The Committee recognizes the principle of equality and non-discrimination under Article 2 CRC as one of the ‘general principles’ of the CRC but has so far not issued a separate General Comment on this provision. In its General Comment No. 24 on children’s rights in youth justice, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2019: para. 40) emphasizes that ‘safeguards against discrimination are needed from the earliest contact with the criminal justice system and throughout the trial, and discrimination against any group of children requires active redress’ but provides little guidance as to what this means and how this could be achieved. A General Comment specifically devoted to Article 2 CRC, which clearly outlines the scope, meaning and implications of this provision and provides recommendations for its effective implementation in different areas of children’s rights, including youth justice, would be timely and welcome (Van den Brink, 2022b). The drafting of such a General Comment also ties in with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly No. 16, on promoting just, peaceful and inclusive societies, with equal access to justice (target 16.3), inclusive and participatory decision-making (target 16.7) and non-discriminatory laws and policies (target 16.b) as key pillars.

In conclusion, the evidence of persistent and widespread inequalities in youth justice practices across the globe is overwhelming and highly concerning. The reported inequalities – along the lines of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability and gender – fundamentally contravene the core principles and objectives of a rights-based youth justice system under the CRC and ultimately undermine the rule of law and the legitimacy of youth justice institutions worldwide. This calls for urgent and collaborative action by youth justice scholars, policymakers, practitioners and advocates globally, to protect the fundamental rights, wellbeing and future life chances of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in the justice system.

Youth Justice Inequalities: A Global Analysis

Youth justice systems globally exhibit significant disparities, disproportionately impacting marginalized groups. Minority ethnic children, those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, children with disabilities, and boys are overrepresented in detention, reflecting biases within law enforcement and judicial processes. Research consistently demonstrates racial disparities, particularly affecting Black boys in the United States, who face higher arrest, charge, and detention rates than their White counterparts. Similar patterns are observed in Europe, where minority ethnic children and those with socioeconomic disadvantages or neurodiversity needs experience systematic disadvantages. Indigenous children in Australia and Canada also face disproportionate targeting and harsher treatment. While data from the Global South is limited, emerging evidence points to similar racial and socioeconomic inequalities in countries like Brazil, India, Ghana, and Mexico. These inequalities represent a global challenge requiring urgent attention, irrespective of jurisdictional differences.

Disparities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

The observed inequalities directly conflict with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)'s non-discrimination principle (Article 2). This principle, a cornerstone of the CRC, ensures equal access to all children's rights, including those pertinent to youth justice (Articles 37 and 40). Equality and non-discrimination are interconnected; equality promotes equal protection and access to rights, while non-discrimination prohibits differential treatment without objective justification. However, equal treatment doesn't imply identical treatment. The CRC acknowledges the need for special measures for specific children or groups to ensure equal rights realization, recognizing the diversity of children's circumstances and needs.

Equality in Youth Justice: Principles and Practice

Equality in youth justice demands that all children in conflict with the law receive appropriate and proportionate responses, irrespective of background. This necessitates equal access to diversion programs and community-based interventions, minimizing detention. It also requires equal access to fair trials, including child-appropriate procedures and due process safeguards tailored to individual needs, considering age, capacity, neurodiversity, and language skills. Finally, equal opportunities for reintegration and societal contribution are crucial, requiring tailored interventions while upholding proportionality and fair trial requirements.

The Discrepancy Between Ideals and Realities

The prevalence of inequalities reveals a significant gap between the CRC's ideals and the lived experiences of many justice-involved children. Marginalized children face disproportionate detention and struggle to exercise their rights, exacerbating existing social disadvantages. System contact, including detention and stigma, has detrimental effects on wellbeing, health, and future opportunities, perpetuating societal inequality.

Addressing Youth Justice Inequalities: A Global Strategy

Addressing these disparities requires a comprehensive, evidence-based global strategy. This demands increased data collection on the prevalence and underlying mechanisms of inequality and enhanced understanding of the principle of equality within youth justice. Systematic data collection, including analyses of intersecting disadvantages, is vital. Further, innovative, multidisciplinary research exploring the production and perpetuation of inequalities is needed, encompassing multiple decision points within and beyond the justice system itself. Cross-national comparative research can illuminate both system-specific and system-independent mechanisms of inequality. Research should also engage children with lived experience and focus on under-researched jurisdictions, including those with plural justice systems.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child can play a leading role in raising awareness and providing guidance on the implications of the equality principle within the CRC. A dedicated General Comment on Article 2 of the CRC would be beneficial, providing clear guidance for its implementation, including within youth justice. This aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those promoting justice, peaceful societies, and inclusive decision-making. Ultimately, collaborative action from scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and advocates is crucial to protect the rights and future prospects of vulnerable children within the justice system.

Summary

Youth justice systems globally exhibit significant inequalities. Minority ethnic groups, those of low socioeconomic status, children with disabilities, and boys are disproportionately represented in detention. This overrepresentation stems from biases in law enforcement and decision-making. Research consistently demonstrates these disparities across various countries, impacting children's access to fair treatment and opportunities.

Inequality and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

These inequalities directly conflict with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child's (CRC) non-discrimination principle. While identical treatment isn't mandated, the CRC emphasizes equal access to rights and the need for tailored interventions acknowledging diverse needs. Equality requires appropriate responses to offending, proportionate to individual circumstances, ensuring that detention is a last resort. It also necessitates fair trials, child-appropriate procedures, and equal reintegration opportunities.

Consequences of Inequality

The pervasive inequalities in youth justice negatively affect vulnerable children. They face disproportionate custodial sentences, hindering their access to fair trials and exposing them to the detrimental effects of incarceration and societal stigma. This creates a cycle of disadvantage impacting long-term wellbeing, health, and future prospects.

Addressing Youth Justice Inequalities

Addressing these issues requires a two-pronged approach. First, robust data collection and research are crucial to understanding the root causes and mechanisms of inequality. This includes examining intersecting forms of disadvantage and studying under-researched areas, particularly in the Global South. Second, increased awareness and guidance are needed on the implications of the CRC’s equality principle. International bodies like the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child can provide crucial leadership through policy recommendations and General Comments, aligning strategies with Sustainable Development Goals.

Youth Justice Inequality: A Global Issue

Disparities in youth justice systems globally disproportionately affect minority ethnic groups, low-income families, children with disabilities, and boys compared to girls. These imbalances are seen in arrest rates, charges, detention, and sentencing. Research in the US highlights racial biases, with minority children, especially Black boys, facing harsher treatment than their white counterparts. Similar trends exist in Europe, where minority ethnic children and those from disadvantaged backgrounds experience systemic disadvantages. Indigenous children in Australia and Canada also face disproportionate targeting and harsher penalties. While less data is available from the Global South, studies in countries like Brazil, India, Ghana, and Mexico reveal similar socioeconomic and racial biases. The unequal application of justice is a worldwide problem needing attention.

Equality in Youth Justice: Contrasting Ideals and Realities

The overrepresentation of marginalized groups in youth justice contradicts the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which emphasizes non-discrimination and equal access to justice. Equality means promoting children's rights equally, while non-discrimination prohibits unequal treatment without justification. The CRC doesn't mandate identical treatment but encourages special measures for those needing them. Achieving equality requires recognizing children's diverse backgrounds, abilities, and needs.

The Meaning of Equality in Youth Justice

Equality demands that all children in conflict with the law receive appropriate, proportionate responses. This includes equal access to diversion programs and community-based interventions, reserving detention as a last resort. Children must also have equal access to fair trials, including participation in legal proceedings. Finally, equal opportunities for reintegration into society, through support and guidance, are crucial for both the child and public safety. This all necessitates a tailored approach while maintaining fairness and proportionality.

The Harmful Effects of Inequality

The reality is that vulnerable children often struggle to exercise their rights and end up in custody disproportionately. The negative effects of contact with the youth justice system, including detention and the stigma of a criminal record, are particularly harmful for already disadvantaged children. This can negatively impact their wellbeing, health, future education, employment, and overall societal integration. This cycle reinforces existing societal inequalities.

Addressing Inequality in Youth Justice

To effectively combat these inequalities, a multi-pronged approach is vital. Firstly, more robust data collection is needed to accurately identify the extent and underlying causes of biases. This should include examining intersecting disadvantages, such as ethnicity and poverty. Secondly, greater awareness and clearer guidance on implementing the CRC's principles of equality and non-discrimination are essential. This includes better international cooperation and support for national policies. Collaboration and comprehensive strategies are needed to protect vulnerable children and ensure fair and equitable youth justice systems.

Summary

Kids aren't always treated fairly in the justice system. Many kids from minority groups, poor families, or with disabilities end up in trouble with the law more often than others. This isn't fair because everyone deserves a chance.

Unfair Treatment

It's like a game that's not fair. Some kids get more chances, while others get in trouble more easily, even if they did the same thing. This happens all over the world, in many different countries.

The Rules Say It Should Be Fair

There are rules that say everyone should be treated equally. But the rules aren't always followed. We need to make sure every kid gets a fair shot and is treated with respect, no matter who they are or where they come from.

The Effects of Unfairness

When the system isn't fair, it can hurt kids. It can make it hard for them to succeed in school or find a good job later. It's not fair, and it makes things worse for everyone.

Fixing the Problem

We need to find ways to make things fairer. We need to collect more information to see where things go wrong and how to make them better. And we also need to teach people that everyone deserves to be treated fairly, no matter what.