The majority of young people in custody have alcohol and other drug problems and over 90%

report past-year experiences of high-risk drinking and illicit drug use. Despite a strong link
between drug use and violent offending, there is a dearth of information about how this
relationship plays out in sentencing young adult offenders. This study examines themes in the
sentencing of drug-using young adults facing court for serious violent crime and describes how
judges discuss rehabilitation as a consideration for this high-risk group. This research
contributes to the literature by bridging law and social science through a cross sectional
analysis of n = 507 sentencing remarks from New South Wales higher courts. Substance use
involvement was indicated in more than three-quarters (77%) of violent offence cases. Among
young adults sentenced for violent crimes involving substance use (n = 51) robbery and
homicide were the most common offences, and alcohol and methamphetamine were the most
frequently involved substances. Two themes emerged around judges’ reasons for sentencing,
one emphasising offender agency and choice and another more compassionate position
acknowledging the influence of drug dependence on offending behaviour. Despite this divide,
addressing substance use dependence was commonly seen as key for the successful
rehabilitation of young people who commit violent crime involving alcohol and other drugs.
Crime is like other concepts in social sciences, which have no generally accepted definition.
According to Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (2009), “a crime is held to be an offence, which
goes beyond the personal and into the public sphere, breaking prohibitory rules or laws, to
which legitimate punishments or sanctions are attached, and which requires the intervention of
a public authority.
Crime is a threat to the economic, political and social security of a nation and a major factor
associated with underdevelopment; because it discourages both local and foreign investments,
reduces the quality of life, destroys human and social capital, damages relationship between
citizens and the states, thus undermining democracy, rule of law and the ability of the country
to promote development. It causes great personal suffering, vast material damage, and place
enormous burden on the urban social network. Globally, every five years, 60% of city
inhabitants have been victims of one type of crime or another while over half of these crimes
have involved personal crime (arson, fraudulence, cheating, 419 syndrome, forgery, etc).
Reports from the media show that most of these crimes are committed by youths within their
care adolescence and early adulthood. One important protective factor that may help to
prevent youth from engaging in risky behaviour or help adolescents avoid outcomes associated
with risky behaviour is self-regulation.
The age of criminal responsibility is the age that a child is considered to be responsible for a
crime. If a child is below the age of criminal responsibility, they cannot be charged with a
criminal offence. As mentioned above the age of criminal responsibility varies from country to
country.
Research over recent years has found some factors that are likely to increase the chance of
youths becoming involved in offending. There are some risk factors that increase the chances of
younger people committing crimes. These are:

 . Social pressures: When young people are disrespected by content uploaded to social
media, this can generate in real life to protect their perceived status and reputation.
Moreover, when young people witness graphic displays of real-life violence involving
 their friends and family, this can leave them anxiety and trauma. Those who initially
upload the content disrespecting a particular individual or group become prone to
retaliatory acts of serious violence and theft, which in turn are often recorded and
broadcast over social media, creating a vicious cycle of retaliation.
 Violent intent is the exception rather than the norm: It is important to highlight that the
vast majority of young people do not want to live the violent and risky lifestyles that are
being glamorised in drill music videos. Many attempt to launch careers as music artists
as a means of escaping life ‘on road’. In addition, these videos should not be seen as a
root cause of youth violence. According to young people and professionals, however,
they are acting as a catalyst and trigger for serious incidents of face-to-face violence
between young people.
 Negative implications for education and employment: The social media accounts of
some people who selfidentify as being part of a street gang are being followed by tens
of thousands of young people. This continuous lens into a seemingly seductive and
lucrative lifestyle that glamorises violence and the pursuit of money through illegal
activities such as drug distribution further undermines the commitment of some young
people to education and legitimate forms of employment.
 Daily exposure to online violence: A small minority of young people are exposed daily to
social media content that displays or incites serious violence in real life. This includes
uploads of photos and videos of individuals and groups trespassing into areas associated
with rival groups, and serious incidents of theft and violence perpetrated against young
people. Some of the latter are being taken within prison settings and broadcast live over
social media by prisoners with access to smartphones. Some social media accounts are
dedicated entirely to archiving and sharing material that displays young people being
seriously harmed, disrespected and humiliated.
Whilst young people now have access to unprecedented tools of communication, a range of
professionals, as well as parents and carers, currently lack the knowledge and skills to
address the risks and challenges that are accompanying these advancements in technology.
Frank and honest conversations, as well as prolonged and collaborative efforts, will be
required from a range of stakeholders to effectively tackle this issue. A range of groups and
organisations have roles to play in tackling the links between young people’s use of social
media and serious youth violence. To this end, it is useful to distinguish between three
distinct albeit complementary strategies: prevention, intervention and suppression.

 Parental criminality
 Poor parental discipline and supervision
 Low family income
 Social isolation
 Alienation
 Family conflict
 Drug or alcohol misuse
 Mental illness
 Troubled home life
 Poor educational attainment
 Lack of skills
 unemployment
 Truancy
 Disruptive behaviour such as aggression, hyperactive, bullying
 School disorganisation
 School exclusion
 Deprivation such as poor housing, homelessness
 Lack of social commitment
 Early involvement in problem behaviour
 Community disorganisation
 Opportunity for crime
 Availability of drugs
 High percentage of children in the community.