By Samyar Samiei
The Victorian Government’s ‘Adult Crime, Adult Time’ policy signals a major change in handling youth crime, aiming to address escalating offences committed by the young people of Victoria. As election season approaches, debate surrounds how best to address youth crime.
Ultimately, the issue is at a crossroads for lawmakers on Spring Street, who are faced with creating legislation that balances community safety with effective rehabilitation for Victoria’s troubled youth. While the current focus on rehabilitation has been criticised for failing to curb offending, the answer is unlikely to lie in harsher punishment alone. Meaningful reform requires evidence-based policies that deter crime and address the underlying causes that drive the young people of Victoria into offending, instead of overvaluing punishment at the expense of prevention and long-term community safety.
I THE LAWS: AN OVERVIEW
On 4December 2025, Victoria’s ‘Adult Crime, Adult Time’ amendments were passed, signalling the Allen Government’s intensified stance towards youth crime, following a similar approach adopted in Queensland.[1] This new legislation removed the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court to hear matters regarding serious violent offences committed by youths aged 14, including carjacking, home invasion and armed robbery. These matters are now heard in the County Court, with the Victorian government pledging to provide the already-strained system with more resources to tackle the extra burden.[2]
The new legislation also adds a ‘stand-alone’ offence for the use of a knife in an indictable offence in an attempt to address the surge in knife crime in Victoria. Offenders may now face up to 3 years’ imprisonment if convicted.[3]
Coming into effect in February 2026, the legislation aims to impose harsher punishment for young offenders, in contrast to the previously weaker guidelines. This disparity is evident in current sentencing patterns, with youths receiving jail sentences for aggravated home invasions and carjackings only 34% of the time, compared to 97% for adults committing the same offences.[4] The reforms aim to align consequences for serious youth offending more closely with those for adults, reinforcing clearer limits on acceptable conduct.[5]
II SUPPORTERS AND ADVERSARIES
The amendments have been hailed as “necessary” by Premier Jacinta Allen, with Attorney-General Sonia Kilkenny in support, stating that they are “necessary to protect the community now”.[6] These statements come after months of criticism and pressure from the public, who have called on the government to adopt a tougher stance. Appearing on the Lead Good podcast, Victorian Police Commissioner Mike Bush joined co-host and former inmate ‘Judo’ to voice their support for the reforms. Judo labelled the previous reforms as “pathetic”, arguing “kids needed time to sit back and see what they were doing was wrong”, while Mike Bush praised the reforms as “spot on” and described them as enabling an “opportunity for intervention”.[7]
These supporters are amongst the most vocal, joining the crowd who criticised the previous system while calling for tougher punishment for offenders. Support for the laws hinges on the idea that lenient punishment incentivises reoffending and emboldens youth offenders to commit further crime, which is supported in research by the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency. From June 2024 to June 2025, crimes committed by children aged 10-17 rose by 17.9%, signalling record rates of youth crime. Further, youth offending is overrepresented in robberies and aggravated burglaries, accounting for 63.1% and 46% of the offences, respectively. [8]
However, despite the rise in youth crime and support for the harsher punishments, many groups have voiced their opposition to the crackdown, stating that alternative courses of action are required.
On the eve of the state government’s proposal, Victoria Legal Aid stated that it was deeply “concerned” and claimed the legislation would be “likely ineffective”.[9] They argued that the youth justice system was built around the recognition that children have a “unique capacity for rehabilitation” and that the adult justice system deprived them of the ability to be rehabilitated effectively.[10] Moreover, Vicki Mau, the Executive Director of 54 Reasons, claimed that incarcerating children to keep the community safe was a “smokescreen” and that doing so “goes against all available evidence”.[11] These critiques raise concerns about the effectiveness of punishment in tackling recidivism. This is significant, given that Victoria’s adult prison system experiences a recidivism rate of 39.3%, suggesting that exposing young offenders to the same system may worsen reoffending outcomes.[12]
Ultimately, both sides have fact-driven arguments; however, the solution isn’t choosing between rehabilitation and punishment but implementing intentional and targeted reform that addresses the underlying causes of youth crime.
III LIMITS OF PUNISHMENT
Despite punishment being a key part of sentencing, it fails to solve offending when used as the primary solution to youth crime. The Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) lists five purposes: punishment, denunciation, rehabilitation, deterrence and community protection.[13] The new legislation emphasises punishment for community protection, exposing the criminal justice system’s limitations and highlighting the preventative aims needed to reduce future offending
The sentencing purpose of deterrence comes in two forms: general, which deters others from committing the same crime, and specific, which deters the offender from reoffending. According to UNSW Law Professor David Brown, the severity of punishment has “no real deterrent effects” or the “effect of reducing recidivism”.[14] By failing to deter offenders, offences will still occur when offenders are released from jail or when prospective offenders are released, leaving the underlying cause unresolved. By not addressing the root causes, the cycle continues, leaving communities still threatened and without a sense of safety.
Furthermore, punitive sentencing practices, particularly the charging of youths as adults and their exposure to harsh prison environments, can undermine the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation. According to a 2012 study, while prison offers many therapeutic programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders, the “features of institutional life of prison work against engagement in therapeutic programs”. This limits effectiveness, as prison-based programs are only as effective as participants’ willingness to engage with them.[15] It has been noted that the inclusion of youths in this environment can heighten existing mental health and behavioural problems. These factors contribute to reoffending and impede community safety, highlighting the ineffectiveness of excessive punishments in tackling the root of the problem.[16]
Beyond the rehabilitative limits, the monetary cost of prospective youth prisoners under the legislation could create financial pressure. Currently, in Victoria, it costs $219,333 to incarcerate one prisoner, and if youth offenders are incarcerated, the fiscal damage could be substantial.[17] This could create financial pressures such as an increased deficit, increased state debt, and potential cuts to social services and programs, likely without addressing the offending. These financial pressures are made more concerning by Victoria’s existing prison overcrowding issues.
According to criminal defence lawyer Mark Martoccia, the prison overcrowding “crisis” has not been addressed by the government. Martoccia states that his clients cannot be transferred to justice facilities because jails are “so crowded”. This may infringe on an accused person’s rights and subject them to inhumane conditions.[18]
The inability of punishment to serve as a long-term solution exposes the weakness of a policy that reactively responds to youth offending. This, in turn, underscores the need for a targeted approach, with the underlying factors of offending requiring greater attention.
IV A TARGETED APPROACH
To move beyond punishment, a targeted approach must be defined clearly and implemented properly. A targeted approach would involve a strategic, evidence-based crime prevention method. It focuses resources and interventions on specific at-risk individuals or groups rather than applying a general approach, such as an increased emphasis on punishment.[19] Specialised programs dedicated to at-risk offenders emphasise prevention rather than dealing with offences on an ad hoc basis.
In Victoria, an existing program is the ‘Youth Crime Prevention Program’ (‘YCPP’), which funds projects designed to support at-risk youth, linking them to educational and employment opportunities.[20] This program has been shown to reduce offending by 29%, demonstrating its effectiveness. However, it remains underfunded, with only $13 million allocated to it in the 2023-24 budget.[21] In comparison, the controversial machete bins introduced in 2025 cost the same amount and have been shown to have had little effect. In fact, it has been shown that they can be opened externally.[22] This highlights the government’s questionable allocation of funds, with the ‘Adult Crime, Adult Time’ laws likely to cost the taxpayer significantly more, which is why funds must be directed to programs like the YCPP to achieve an effective reduction in offending.
A 2025 La Trobe University paper, written by Kate Syme-Lamont, Irene Blackberry and Cecily Fletcher, found that continued support programs for youth in high-risk environments from pre-school through to age 18 reduced offending by up to 20%.[23] It found that those in high-risk environments, such as those in low-socioeconomic neighbourhoods, are more vulnerable and require the greatest support. The program explicitly outlined a range of preventative actions, including limiting the availability of alcohol, improving maternal and child health, and expanding community support services for issues such as homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, family violence, and mental health crises.[24] By addressing the underlying causes of offending rather than relying primarily on detaining perpetrators, a response often glorified by the media, the initiative achieved a meaningful reduction in crime.[25]
Ultimately, a targeted approach offers a more effective and sustainable solution to addressing youth crime. Increased investment in preventative programs would not only reduce offending but also deliver long-term economic benefits by lowering the costs associated with incarceration and crime. While such measures may receive less public attention than punitive reforms, the evidence is convincing. It suggests they provide a more meaningful path to improving community safety and reducing long-term damage associated with youth criminalisation.
V CONCLUSION
Victoria’s ‘Adult Crime, Adult Time’ approach reflects a reactive response to rising youth crime. While the state requires accountability regarding youth crime, an overreliance on punitive measures is ineffective and financially burdensome in the long term. A more effective path lies in funding and implementing proven prevention-based programs, such as the YCPP, to uphold community safety and reduce crime in a cost-effective way by addressing root causes. In doing so, there can be safer communities for all Victorians and a better future for at-risk youths.
[1] Molly Magennis, ‘Victorian Parliament passes new Adult Crime for Violent crime laws in bid to curb ongoing crisis’, 7NEWS (online, 5 Dec 2025) < https://7news.com.au/news/victorian-parliament-passes-new-adult-time-for-violent-crime-laws-in-bid-to-curb-ongoing-crisis–c-20895510>.
[2] State Government (Vic) , ‘ADULT TIME FOR VIOLENT CRIME IS NOW LAW’ (Media Release, Dec 4 2025) <https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-12/251204-Adult-Time-For-Violent-Crime-Is-Now-Law.pdf>.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Eleanor Wilson, ‘Teens set to face life in prison for violent crimes as new law enforced’, 9NEWS (online at 27 Feb 2026) <https://www.9news.com.au/national/adult-time-for-adult-crime-laws-come-into-effect-victoria/5e6c0878-d853-403d-85b2-14ed9b28c723>.
[5] Premier of Victoria Jacinta Allen, ‘Adult Time for Violent Crime’ (Media Release, Victorian Government, 12 November 2025) <https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-11/251112-Adult-Time-For-Violent-Crime-.pdf>.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Patrick Hannaford, Youth Crime: Police Commissioner Backs Judo’s Proposal to Help Youth Offenders’, Sky News Australia (online at 15 April 2026) <https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/crime/victorias-police-commissioner-mike-bush-backs-excriminal-judos-bail-criticism-as-opposition-announces-major-reform/news-story/49d26b94dfd89d0f0bc120bccb7daa89>.
[8] Benita Kolovos, ‘Victoria’s crime rates surges with young offenders contributing to record arrests’, The Guardian (Online at 19 Jun 2025) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/19/victorias-crime-rate-surges-with-young-offenders-contributing-to-record-arrests#:~:text=2016%202018%202020%202022%202024,target%20the%20repeat%20offenders%20responsible>.
[9] Victoria Legal Aid, ‘Treating children as adults in the justice system is deeply troubling’, (Media realease, 12 Nov 2025) <https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/treating-children-adults-justice-system-deeply-troubling>.
[10] Ibid.
[11] 54 Reasons, ’54 Reasons responds to the Victorian Government’s proposed “Adult Time for Violent Crime” Legislation’ (Media release, 12 November 2025) <https://www.savethechildren.org.au/media/media-releases/adult-time-for-violent-crime-legislation>.
[12] Sentencing Council Victoria, ‘Released Prisoners returning to Prison’, (Web page) <https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sentencing-statistics/released-prisoners-returning-to-prison#:~:text=In%20Victoria%2C%2039.3%25%20of%20prisoners,the%20lowest%20rate%20at%2028.2%25.>.
[13] Sentencing Council Victoria, ‘Sentencing Purposes, Principles, Factors’, (Web Page) <https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/about-sentencing/sentencing-purposes-principles-factors>.
[14] Ben Knight, ‘Do Harsher punishments deter crime?’, UNSW Newsroom (online, 16 July 2020) <https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2020/07/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime>.
[15] Andrew Day et al, ‘Assessing the Therapeutic Climate of Prisons’ (2012) 39(2) Criminal Justice and Behavior 156 <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854811430476>.
[16] Ian Lambie and Isabel Randell, ‘The Impact of Incarceration on Juvenile Offenders’ (2013) 33(3) Clinical Psychology Review 448, <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027273581300010X#preview-section-snippets>.
[17] Mia Schlicht, ‘The Costs of Prison 2025’ (Institute of Public Affairs, Oct 2025) <https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/IPA-Research-The-Cost-of-Prisons-2025-FINAL-1.pdf>.
[18] Sharnelle Vella and Rosa Ritchie, ‘Victorian Prisoners Held in Police Stations for Weeks, Lawyer Says’, ABC News <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-05/victoria-criminal-lawyer-clients-remand-held-in-police-cells/106100524>.
[19] Troy Allard, April Chrzanowski and Anna Stewart, Targeting Crime Prevention to Reduce Offending: Identifying Communities That Generate Chronic and Costly Offenders (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No 445, Australian Institute of Criminology, September 2012) <https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi445>.
[20] Community Crime Prevention Victoria, ‘Youth Crime Prevention Program’ (Web Page, 27 November 2025) <https://www.crimeprevention.vic.gov.au/grants-and-programs/youth-crime-prevention-program#about-the-program>.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Matthew Elmas, ‘Claim the machete bins cost the government $325,000 is false’, Lilydale Star Mail (Online, 11 September 2025) <https://lilydale.mailcommunity.com.au/news/2025/09/11/claim-machete-bins-cost-the-government-325000-is-false/>; ‘Bin Fight’, 9News (online, 10 Septemeber 2025) <https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1345516563599634>.
[23] Kate Syme-Lamont, Irene Blackberry and Cecily Fletcher, What Works in Youth Violence: A Re-appraisal of the Evidence (Research Report, La Trobe University and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, June 2025) <https://www.latrobe.edu.au/research/ceri/documents/Youth-Violence-Report-FOR-SHARING.pdf>.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.