Desktop version

Home arrow Law arrow International Handbook of Juvenile Justice

Source

Conviction Rates

Table 11.3 shows the numbers of convictions in Austria between 2004 and 2014 in total as well as the absolute numbers and percentages of juveniles and young adults.

Table 11.3. Convictions per age group

Year

Total

14 < 18

18 < 21

No

%

No

%

No

%

2004

45,185

100

3336

7.4

5500

12.2

2005

45,691

100

2953

6.5

5999

13.1

2006

43,414

100

2889

6.7

5594

12.9

2007

43,158

100

3084

7.1

5916

13.7

2008

38,226

100

2988

7.8

5259

13.8

2009

37,868

100

3155

8.3

5257

13.9

2010

38,394

100

3063

8

5246

13.7

2011

36,461

100

2747

7.5

5152

14.1

2012

35,541

100

2562

7.2

4903

13.8

2013

51.696

100

2248

6.5

4524

13.1

2014

49.94

100

2086

6.3

3968

12

Convictions per age group (absolute numbers and percentages)

Source: Austrian Ministry of Justice (annual Austrian Criminal Justice Reports, Part 2)

Development of police-reported juvenile suspects and convicts. Police reported suspects (No and BKBZ) and convictions. Source

Figure 11.1. Development of police-reported juvenile suspects and convicts. Police reported suspects (No and BKBZ) and convictions. Source: For database, see Tables 11.1 and 11.3.

In general, a slight decrease in the number of convictions can be seen.

In Fig. 11.1—for reasons of comparison—the data on convictions of juveniles as well as the data on registered suspects (see also Table 11.1) are shown together.

It becomes obvious that the conviction rate remains relatively constant (in fact, it even decreased temporarily), whereas, by contrast, the rate of alleged juvenile offences temporarily increased strongly from 2004 to 2008 (see also Table 11.1), probably influenced by the peoples’ willingness to report offences by juveniles.

Decisions by public prosecutor 2014. Decisions by public prosecutor in % (total, juveniles, young adults, adults) in 2014. Source

Figure 11.2. Decisions by public prosecutor 2014. Decisions by public prosecutor in % (total, juveniles, young adults, adults) in 2014. Source: Ministry of Justice (annual Austrian Criminal Justice Reports, Part 2), 2014.

The difference between the suspects’ and the convicts’ rates can be explained by the high rate of dismissals and the wide variety of sanction possibilities in Austria ordered by the public prosecutor or by court without a conviction (see to the decisions of the prosecutor and the court for the year 2014 the following Figs. 11.2 and 11.3). Such measures of diversion to settle juvenile criminal proceedings—which have been implemented in 2001 (see below the sanction system p. 234)—have effectively been applied.

Public Prosecutors’ Decisions in 2014

The sanctioning practices of the public prosecutors during the pretrial phase can be seen in Fig. 11.2. It shows that the proceedings against juveniles in most of the cases—60 %>—are dismissed; in 18.5 %> there is a decision for a diversionary measure; in 20.8 % the juvenile is accused and has to go to court.

Courts’ Decisions in 2014

The cases, which come to court, were decided as follows in 2014 (Fig. 11.3): in about 20 % a diversionary measure was ordered, in 60 % the juveniles were convicted, and in 13 % acquitted.

Decisions by Court 2014. Decisions by court in % (total, juveniles, young adults, adults) in 2014. Source

Figure 11.3. Decisions by Court 2014. Decisions by court in % (total, juveniles, young adults, adults) in 2014. Source: Ministry of Justice (annual Austrian Criminal Justice Reports, Part 2), 2014.

 
Source
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >

Related topics