I have not heard a single sensible answer to what do you do instead. Nothing. Front up and tell us the plan. 

There a hundreds of programs that have been really effective in diverting kids from the criminal justice system and onto the straight and narrow. And they are effective but they need funding. Every year they come cap in hand to the government for funding to scale up. If they do receive funding, it’s never enough. Or as was the case this year, the government funded a diversion and early intervention project which was a partnership between a community legal centre and the police, but they gave most of the money to the police, rather than the CLC which actually did all the work. That program was hugely successful but will probably have to end this year because of lack of funding. Solutions aren’t cheap or easy — I suspect a clout over the ear is not going to be particularly useful to a child from a dysfunctional home who suffers from intergenerational trauma.

They know what’s wrong – even little toddlers often do – but they act impulsively without awareness of consequences. They need some sort of major intervention, maybe hearing from their victims, maybe some counselling or supervision of the whole family, which is often where the trouble starts. I don’t know the answer really, but there must be something better than putting them on the path to a career in crime.

And conversely, not all minority groups. The rich and powerful are a minority group, and yet have little to fear from the police.

All minority groups should be afraid of the police.

Not just minority groups. Women are a small majority of the population. Their treatment by police in a range of situations, especially in domestic violence matters, has regularly been seen to be woeful.

You should perhaps consider that not all people are identical and develop maturity at different rates.

Hence the 12yo capable of running a household is not developmentally the same as the 12yo stealing cars.

That being said, there does need to be a better way of dealing with those in the latter group, because if they aren’t able to tell bad behaviour from good, they represent a danger to themselves and others.

Campaign Trail: Political Candidate: “My fellow citizens, I stand before you today with a promise of law and order. If elected, I vow to crack down on crime and put more criminals behind bars. Your safety is my top priority!”
Post-Election: Newly Elected Official: “Now that I’m in office, I need to fulfil my campaign promises. I need support to draft and pass these tough-on-crime laws. Who can help me navigate this complex process?”
Enter the Police Force: Police Chief: “Congratulations on your victory. We’ve been eagerly awaiting a leader like you who understands the importance of law enforcement.” Police Union Representative: “We’re more than happy to assist you in crafting these new laws. Our officers are on the front lines every day, so we have valuable insights to offer.”
The Negotiation: Police Chief: “However, to effectively implement these stricter policies, we’ll need some assurances.” Police Union Representative: “Exactly. We need better protection from prosecution when we’re just doing our jobs. And of course, improved wages and working conditions to attract and retain the best officers.” Newly Elected Official: “I see. And in return?” Police Chief: “In return, you’ll have our full support in implementing your law and order agenda. We’ll make sure the crime statistics reflect positively on your administration.”
The Agreement: Newly Elected Official: “Very well. I believe we can work together on this. Let’s draft some proposals that will satisfy both our needs.” Police Union Representative: “Excellent. We look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship.”
This scenario illustrates the potential for a quid pro quo relationship between elected officials and law enforcement, highlighting how their interests can align in ways that reinforce each other’s power and influence.