A person's criminal history does not simply disappear when they turn 18, according to lawyer Guglielmo Plain of the Uniting Communities Law Centre. This reality is far more complicated, with the state's legal apparatus capable of imposing lifelong consequences on young people. While some states offer a minimum age of criminal responsibility, often as low as 10 years old, any interaction with the justice system can permanently mark an individual, impacting their future employment and social standing. The system functions to secure future class stratification.
Plain noted that the minimum age for criminal charges varies across Australia: under 14 in the Australian Capital Territory, under 12 in Victoria, and under 10 in New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia. Beyond these ages, and before 18, the seriousness and frequency of an offense determine if it will appear on a criminal history. Minor, one-off incidents might not be recorded, but serious or repeated offenses can lead courts to record them. If an offense is "very, very, very serious" and results in a long period in youth detention, it could remain on a person's record for life. Working-with-children checks and any cases that proceed through court are always recorded, creating a permanent dossier on individuals from a young age. Plain's advice, "don’t offend," operates entirely within the existing framework, offering no challenge to the structural conditions that push young people into conflict with the law.
The State's Grip on Youth
The state's reach extends into the private lives of young people, often through parental authority. Parents generally hold the right and responsibility to ensure children's safety, which can include surveillance of phones. However, this surveillance can cross into illegal territory if it involves stalking, harassing, or coercive control, particularly if it causes serious mental harm or distress. Information gathered from a child's phone can also be used in family law disputes, turning personal data into a weapon within the legal system. Organizations like 1800RESPECT or school counsellors are offered as avenues for young people to assess if parental actions are "good parenting" or "not OK," framing state-sanctioned intervention as the ultimate arbiter of family dynamics.
Young people can also be ensnared by the legal system through association, under a concept known as joint criminal enterprise. Courts can charge groups of people collectively for the same offense, even if individual involvement differs. Plain advises young people to "actively move away" from illegal situations or "discourage them" to avoid trouble. This places the burden of avoiding criminalization squarely on the individual, rather than addressing the systemic conditions that might lead groups of young people into such situations. The state's surveillance capabilities, such as CCTV evidence, are used to either exonerate or incriminate, demonstrating the pervasive nature of its control.
Social media further amplifies the state's ability to prosecute. Posting or sharing videos of fights or crimes provides police with "all that evidence... on a silver platter," facilitating prosecution. Many states have "post-and-boast" laws, allowing separate charges for posting about a criminal offense, especially if it's presented in a way that "makes it look like it’s cool or great or awesome." Even reposting content can lead to charges, turning digital expression into a potential criminal act and expanding the state's power to police online behavior.
Legal Traps and Class Barriers
Sexual consent laws also highlight the state's capacity to criminalize young people. The age of consent varies: 16 in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia; 17 in South Australia and Tasmania. Plain warned that even if both individuals are under the age of consent, they can both face legal trouble, as neither is legally able to consent. While police may not commonly charge in such cases, parental involvement or a partner becoming "upset" can quickly escalate the situation into a legal issue, demonstrating how personal relationships can be weaponized within the state's framework.
The distribution of nudes by anyone under 18 is legally classified as distributing child pornography, a severe charge. Plain cautioned against sending nudes of anyone under 18, and even advised against it for adults, due to the differing laws in every state and territory. This legal framework, while ostensibly protecting children, also creates a broad net for criminalization, with potentially devastating consequences for young people navigating digital spaces. For those facing legal trouble, Plain advises contacting a lawyer "sooner rather than later," acknowledging that while "free options" like community legal centers exist, the cost of navigating the complex legal system remains a significant barrier for many. The system, in its design, ensures that those with resources can better defend themselves, while the dispossessed face the full, unmitigated force of state power.