... Painting violent youths as monsters makes it difficult for establishment authority to see youths as capable of remorse. And yet remorse is a central feature of the official assessment of criminality. All of the establishment authorities agree that "distress or internal discomfort" on the part offender are an indication of remorse and hence a measure of the potential for the individual not to re-offend in future.

... In theory, remorse is an objective index of both the extent to which offenders have become contrite and, subsequently, their readiness for reintegration into normal and polite society. In practice, remorse is a religiously and socially sanctioned mechanism through which authorities are allowed to label and pathologize youths who do not conform in ways deemed necessary. Operationally, the concept of remorse individualizes and psychologizes youth crime by blaming youth offenders for their mistakes, allowing authorities to ignore poverty and other structural factors that contextualize individual behaviour. The oppressive nature of these processes is particularly underscored in the relationship between the concepts of remorse and abnormality a term which is used as a weapon against those who defy the expected. (69-71)

Ms. Barron further notes that, "The importance attributed to the medical model and the consequent need to classify behaviour have blindly focussed the authorities' attention on individual explanations of violence, thereby ignoring the structural realities that govern the lives of youth.... By comparison, the youths themselves readily contextualize their behaviour by pointing to structural factors, often associated with their socio-economic position in society. Poverty, early victimization and a need for respect all figured as experience-based explanations of their violent actions. However, in the collective mind of authorities, these structural determinants were either misinterpreted or conspicuously unacknowledged ... Race is also at issue in the perceived increase in youth violence. By focussing on individual explanations of crime, authorities overlook cultural and language barriers, as well as the destructive impact of racism , when assessing the behaviour of immigrant and racialized youths. That the salience of race and racial barriers is recognized by youth minorities themselves.... The importance of culture and poverty are ignored by those who oversee the youth justice system" (75-76).

Finally, as Shahid Alvi frames the issue, "if criminology is to advance better theories of youth and adult crime, it must come to terms with the multifaceted nature of crime. This means nothing less than rigorously studying the great variation in psychological, familial, sociological, and community factors that interact to produce criminal behaviour, within a society that is defined and shaped by power relationships of many kinds. We must not only take what is useful from existing theories of crime, but challenge and discard all that is not. There is much at stake here – for to continue to hang onto a criminal justice system based on theories and assumptions that are outmoded or inadequate is to deny justice to young people and the society in which they live" (118).

Christie Barron also discusses the justice system's "overwhelming tendency, in intellectualizing and designing programs for youth, to stress personality disorders and psychological solutions. As a result, there is limited appreciation of structural factors, such as poverty and a lack of opportunities, both as causes of youth crime and as valuable indicators where meaningful reform must begin." Ms. Barron goes onto discuss the nature of the youth justice systems reflection of "the conservative attitude of authorities and the enduring reliance on incarceration as the main means of dealing with violent youths. Young offenders relate to the system as non-adults clients and objects of authority. They are both resistant to and enmeshed in the relations of ruling" (90-91).

The foregoing material provides an overview of some of the myriad issues and pitfalls associated with utilizing current actuarial risk assessment instruments and approaches to or for youth. Rather than attempting to adapt either the instruments or youth themselves to try to push them into existing risk assessment categories, I propose that we examine the possibility of developing models of supporting, and thereby classifying, young people which focus on strengths and gifts, as opposed to merely chronicling negative or risky behaviours. At a minimum, such approaches would provide a more positive series of descriptions of the youth who are criminalized. It might also promote more positive views of those youths by themselves, their parents (be that family of origin or adopted/state parents), professionals, and others with whom the youth interact.

K. Pate