Many features of the system, which caters for children up to the age of 16, are admirable, including family group conferences. Overall, it aims to keep children out of the criminal justice system, through restorative justice and rehabilitation measures.
Where possible, this is through police warnings or intervention and ``alternative action'' in the community, via Youth Aid. Only in the most serious cases will child and youth offenders (those aged 10 to 16) be dealt with either in the Family Court or Youth Court.
However, New Zealand is in the minority with its view 17-year-olds are old enough to stand trial as adults. This is despite New Zealand being a signatory to the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defines a child as under the age of 18.
The issue is a hot topic. This week, in an open letter to Prime Minister John Key and Cabinet ministers, 33 high-profile individuals - representing groups and sectors involved in youth care, protection, justice and research - called for the Youth Court age to be raised to include 17-year-olds. They include University of Otago law dean Prof Mark Henaghan and Assoc Prof Nicola Taylor and Megan Gollop, of the university's Children's Issues Centre.
This is the latest in a succession of calls for such action. Former Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft, who became Children's Commissioner in July, has made it one of his goals.
Cabinet is considering such a proposal - as part of major reforms to the child welfare system. That proposal is for offenders up to and including the age of 19 to be dealt with by the Youth Court.
The arguments - much based on sound research including that of the ``Dunedin Study'' - make sense. The adolescent brain is still forming, decision-making is less reliable, and a certain amount of ``risk taking'' and ``bad behaviour'' is part of young adult development. Many youth are not hard-core offenders, hard-wired for a life of crime. But throwing them into the adult criminal justice system, and locking them up with older, hardened criminals, is likely to set them on the path of no return. Some youth have never had the opportunity to thrive, and have turned to crime to survive.
That is not to dismiss serious crimes some youth have committed and the impacts on victims. Perpetrators will still face justice in the youth system. But they will also have better access to support measures that can make a positive change - for the individual and for society.
After all, 17-year-olds are still school-age children - even if some have fallen through the cracks and are no longer in formal education. At that age, they cannot even vote or legally buy alcohol.
Reports through the years have shown how badly we have failed our children. Logic would dictate the Government will move on the issue, as it has on others in the wake of damning reports about Child, Youth and Family, including raising the age of state care to 18.
Mr Becroft has called New Zealand's intransigence on the issue ``an embarrassment'' and ``an enduring stain on our otherwise good justice record''. Sadly it is not the only human rights area in which we have been found lacking.
But our continued breach of the convention might be harder to defend as we advocate for Helen Clark as head of the United Nations. If humiliating international exposure is enough to turn the tide, that will be welcome as it could make a very real difference in the lives of some of our youth.
