Youth Justice

School of Law and Criminology

Youth Justice 6CJ012

Student Name: Sally Burroughs Student Number: 100010330

Contents 2 Introduction 5 Political Attitudes 6. Theories 10. Conclusion 11. References

Introduction Discuss the changing political attitudes towards dealing with young offenders, providing some analyse as to whether the various approaches

have been successful or not in desisting young offenders from criminal activity. Human social life is governed by rules and norms which define the behaviours which are acceptable to a given society, each society has its own cultural values which can vary greatly. Not everyone conforms to these social expectations all of the time, human nature has the ability for some deviation, as some people at some point in their lives have committed minor acts. A sanction is a reaction from others to the behaviour of an individual or group which has the aim of ensuring that a given norm is complied with. All societal norms are accompanied by sanctions established over time which protect from non-conformity; some of these are formal or informal. A formal sanction can be defined by a professional body or an agency set up to reinforce these rules and norms within a system, this system has a negative effect on the individual by means of punishment for example fines or imprisonment. Informal sanctions are those take by individuals as a reaction to non-conformity and are more spontaneous which allows individuals to show their disapproval for example, ignored or not being included to attend functions. Norms are defined in laws by government as principles that their citizens must follow; crime is any behaviour that breaks a law and Anti-social behaviour is lacking judgement and consideration for others through careless negligence or deliberate damage.

Political Attitudes Political attitudes have changed over time as more research is made available, the first theorist believed that deviance was essentially a biological influence and that people were born with certain criminal tendencies. This view was held by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso working in the 1870,s, he believed that certain people were born with criminal tendencies and were throw backs to a more primitive type of human being. Lombroso believed that criminal types could be identified by the shape of the skull and regarded most criminals as biologically degenerate or defective, throw-backs to a primitive human beings. During the 10th Century a thief over the age of 12 years should receive the death penalty if the value of the theft was over 8 pence; this was modified to no death penalty to under 16 years and a child under 12 years exempt from prosecution and punishment. Richard Dugdale (1877) compared a family tree of the Dukes family with the descendents of Jonathon Edwards, a well known preacher. The Dukes family included 140 criminals within a 1,200 family tree members whereas the Edwards family had no criminals and with comparison had one President of the United States, high-ranking justices, writers and religious leaders. However extensive research has provided forebears of the Edwards family having criminal convictions therefore according to this theory the family should have some criminal convictions amongst the descendents. This theory does not take into account the affluence of the family and the circumstances of their upbringing. In pre-industrial England, children did not have any rights and were exploited, the most serious of crimes were those against the Church or aristocracy, these were measured by the loss or damage caused and were dealt with as the more costly, the more severe the punishment. Children were treated by the court of law the same as adults. By the mid 19th Century there was a rational system developing to save society from the actions of these criminal children and the belief to remove the child from the family unit to save them from a life of crime was introduced. 1889 was the first ever piece of legislation which included the welfare of the child, it was commonly known as the children’s charter and was a direct result of the cruelty inflicted upon children. This enabled the state to intervene for the first time, in relation to the parents and children. Police could arrest anyone ill treating a child and enter a home if it was believed that a child was in danger. The Act included guidelines of the employment of children and outlawed begging.

The Children Act 1894 was an amendment to the original Act and allowed children to give evidence in court, and it became a criminal offence to deny a sick child medical attention. The act was the first recognition of mental cruelty as an offence. Children were seen as innocents which needed to be educated to be law abiding citizens.

Child Protection By 1908, Children were treated separately and youth courts were established, it was recognised that children did not have the full understanding of adults. The death penalty was abolished and under 14 year olds were no longer imprisoned and 14/5 year olds were only jailed in exceptional circumstances. The Children Act 1908 was the first recognition within legislation that a young person has difficulties and needs acknowledged as a child and not treated as a little adult. The introduction of The Punishment of Incest Act made sexual abuse within families a matter for state intervention rather than the clergy as further protection of children was considered in response to public outcry. Incest was acknowledged amongst the richer families as well as known in poorer families and this was a protection of all children not in relation to class. The 1932 Children and Young Persons Act was a result of a realisation that there was a rise in youth offending and something had to be done to curb anti-sociable behaviour. Special panel boards of magistrates’ were set up to deal the problem and supervision of children at risk was introduced. According to www.swarb.co.uk, this act is concerned with the welfare of the child which includes under subsection 11 which covers the safety within the home of the dangers of open fires which would have been common for the era. The Act also includes removing a child from undesirable surroundings, and for ensuring proper provision for education and training. The Act under 39 (b) also covers the opinion that no photographs’ or identifying of a young offender may be published to protect the young person’s identity for the belief was that the young person will grow out of offending behaviour and identifying them may prevent them from employment or housing as an adult. In 1933, all the legislation concerning the welfare and safety of children was brought together under one piece of legislation, The 1933 Children Act. The 1948 Children Act was a direct response to a child care scandal of the death of 13 year old Dennis O’Neill at the hands of his foster parents, it became the duty of the Local Authority to take “in care” any child that has been abused or neglected. Local Authorities gained powers in 1952 to

investigate suspected cases of abuse or neglect but it was not until 1963 that they gained any powers to take preventative action. The Act also established the idea of detention centre’s for persistent offenders, to educate young offenders by programmes of work to provide the necessary skills for employment. By the 1969 Children Act, it was believed that antisocial behaviour was a direct result of problems within the family and social deprivation and the solution lay in treatment, advice and assistance given to the family. Social Workers were provided and the court instructed the direct care and intervention and the welfare principle was established. The court looked beyond the offender, considering the long term development of the child.

Theories Cloward and Ohlin (1960) researched lower or working-class youths and accepted that antisocial behaviour acts do occur amongst young people of all classes but working-class youths often had support and encouragement from other working class youths but those from more affluent areas experienced a mixed response from their peers. Robert Merton (1949) tried to explain offending behaviour by measuring the desires and needs of an individual to the realistic success of obtaining them. Each society has differing elements which it strives to achieve and the individual has a choice of making a decision to achieve these elements by legitimate means or not. Merton argues that crime is a result from exclusion from legitimate means of achieving success and the type of criminal behaviour is learned by socialisation. In 1972 Stanley Cohen wrote a book called Folk Devils and Moral Panics, this was his encounter of the effects of the mass media on a subject chosen by the press to have extensive coverage to highlight anti social behaviour. The behaviour was committed by a small group of mods (motorbike fanatics), whose behaviour was anti social at a seaside resort. The media coverage led the readers of the newspaper articles to believe that the young mods behaviour was a common and frequent example of what was happening around the rest of the country. This was recognition of what the media led the general public to believe and could cause fear and alarm for the most vulnerable of the population. In 1974 the inquiry into the death of Maria Cowell at the hands of her stepfather highlighted a serious of non-coordination among child care services and this led to the Area Child Protection Committees which was set to be a safeguard for the protection of children.

James Q. Wilson (1985) was the foremost proposer of the Right Realism theory; he did not challenge the criminal law as defined by the powerful of society but researched street crime as opposed to all crime. Wilson studied the rise in crime rate and the rise in birth rate of those who reached criminalogenic age group. Wilson believed that young males were the most prevalent of offenders. Wilson accepted certain aspects of previous behavioural and conditioning theories but established the belief that circumstances do not cause everyone to participate in crime but tried to explain why some people were more likely than others to commit crime that have the same circumstances. The body-type theories of the behaviourist reasoned that genes are relevant because they have a strong influence on brain function and as all human being are genetically unique this can explain the behavioural differences of individuals who have had the same upbringing with similar environmental and social influences. This suggests a slight difference in genes gives rise to a temperament which is more or less receptive to antisocial behaviour. The psychological aspect accepts a more of a learnt behaviour, particularly conditioning theory of Pavlov. The individual genetic makeup plays a part in how the individual assess the risks of rewards and punishments of certain behaviours and the internalised conscience of the individual which is acceptable by the family unit. The reaction of the family unit plays an important part of the nurture of the conscience, the input from family, peers, school and the work environment or lack of work moulds the conscience and influences the way in which it works. According to Right Realism, it is the biology that sets out who is at risk of offending, whilst the socialisation helps to decided whether or not the offending behaviour becomes more likely, the lack of affluence also increases the risk. Wilson and Kelling (1982 and 1989) argued that the main effective law enforcement was the use of police as providers of an environment in which criminality is discouraged by enforcing behaviour that is more likely to reduce respect in an area by clamping down on undesirable behaviour such as gang fights, prostitution, drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Wilson and Kelling suggest the effort should be on action against rowdy children, groups of teenagers on street corners, litter, harassment and intimidation, which indicate a social decline within an area to lift the moral of the community. To target is to reduce these behaviours that often interfere most with the enjoyment of life for the majority of the community. Right Realism theory has the view that crime is the individual choice and can be prevented by reducing the opportunities of criminal

behaviour, increase the likelihood of detection and has definite punishments in place. According to The Guardian 25/11/1993, Walton in Liverpool was an area with an unemployment level twice that of the national average with a third generation without fulltime consistent employment. In this environment Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were born, both lived with their mothers without a full time father figure. These boys were aged 10/11 years when they led a 2 year old, James Bulger out of a shopping centre and were convicted of his murder. There was a lot in common with thousands of 10 year old boys across the United Kingdom but only a handful commit violent crime, it is not known why the two boys committed such an appalling murder but it is also not known why more boys in their environmental situation do not commit such violent crimes. de Haan and Vos (2003) criticised the Right Realism theory by arguing that the theory does not take into account those individuals that live below the poverty line and commit crime out of necessity and do not have a genuine choice. Hogg and Brown (1998) research concluded that a decline in moral values and realistic choices of an individual obscures the social problem and inequality within a society and does nothing to encourage conformity. It permits the rich and powerful within society to dominate the less fortunate and creates a further divide between the haves and have-nots within a society. The young are the hardest hit by poverty, being excluded from the benefit system unless under extreme hardship which has to be proved by the individual and are the most affected by the reduction of public housing. These conditions are socially constructed and according to Currie (1997) both the greed and selfishness of the influential of society cause a dehumanising effect of the poor and unemployed which keeps poverty. Jock Young (1999) found a clear link between these factors and young male offenders where crime may be one of the few roles open to them where employment is rare and women choose not to marry and the young male may find he does not have any status. Norman Mailer wrote “it is that not only the worst of the young are sent to prison, but the bravest, the most daring, the most enterprising, and the most undefeated of the poor....those who are drawn to crime as a positive experience because it is more exciting, more meaningful, more mysterious, more transcendental, more religious than any other experience they have known”

In The Body D.Walton 1999 Blackwell Publishers UK. In 2001 the Local Authorities failed to protect 3 year Kennedy McFarlane who was on the child at risk register, he was murdered and an Audit published the following year found that over half the children at risk of abuse or neglect failed to receive adequate protection. The 1989 Children Act gave every child the right to protection from abuse, exploitation and safeguard of their welfare, this was a measure to give families back the responsibilities of the welfare of the child and the state to take a step back from interfering. It was not until 1999 that it was recognised that children were being abused within childcare organisations; the Act required the Department of Health to be notified of anyone suspected of harming a child or putting them at risk. No more excuses white paper became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 under the Labour government and was a direct response to the public pressure during a general election campaigne. The previous Conservative government had commissioned the Morgan Report in 1991 and a “Misspent Youth” (1996) an audit report and the resulting administrative framework for the Labour government led to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Misspent Youth report studied the current system for dealing with youth crime stating that it was inefficient and expensive with little effect. Home Secretary Jack Straw was enthusiastic about his biggest shake up of the youth justice system for years. He introduced Youth Offending Teams to work with young offenders and their families; he brought together the probation team, police, education, social services and health services to have a multi-agency to combat youth offending. This resulted in changes of power to a local level to combat local crime. Mark Perfect, the Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Board in 1998 as quoted in The New Politics of Youth Crime: discipline or solidarity? “The present system replicates the inconsistent parenting which young offenders have received, making it necessary to replace it with a fast, efficient system with a progressive, comprehensive sentencing tariff, which offers the consistency and predictability which replicate “good parenting”” This was an effort by the government to deal with young offenders quickly to act for the punishment to represent the criminal act and not months later when the actual crime was long forgotten.

The principle of New Labours legislation was to include restorative justice, this was devised to deal with small localised crime and is more of an informal offender/victim approach and harm minimisation. The idea was to bring together both the victim and the offender to reach an agreement by both parties to the punishment for the offence. The idea was to allow the victim to state the consequences’ of the criminal act upon the victim, for example, of car theft, the victim has an opportunity to state what impact the theft had upon the victim and their family. New legislation does not take into account that according to the Audit Commission of 1994, 5% of offenders commit 68% of all offences committed by juveniles. More needs to be done to target these offenders. Detention is not the answer as 85% of young offenders re-offend within 2 years. The Surestart programme started in 1997 as an incentive scheme to get young people into training and employment with financial aid to poorer families. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced new powers to deal with juvenile petty offences which were extended in 2003 to include Anti-Social Behaviour Act. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 abolished the notion of “doli incapax” which provided the prosecution with having to prove that a juvenile under 14 years of age did understand that what he was doing was wrong. The Act introduced Acceptable behaviour contracts drawn up by the Youth Offending Team to stop nuisance behaviour. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders last a minimum of 2 years and can be indefinite, no criminal conviction is needed but a balance of probabilities, a breach can lead to fines and imprisonment. Section 8, Parenting Orders, order a parent to attend guidance sessions for a period of 3-12 months but these can only be offered if they are available in their area. Section 14 can allow a juvenile to put on a child curfew which allows the police to take the child home if found on the streets after the hours stipulated. Courts can take a long term overall view of the child’s welfare which could be derogative to the short term welfare of the child under the Children Act 1989.

Conclusion There has been a lot of research into why young people offend there are several theories including biological and sociological.

Biological theories include the beliefs of Lambroso and the later ideas of Wilson that the criminal behaviour is passed down by the genes of the parent; Lombroso did not take into account the socio environment of the offender but based his view on appearances. Wilson acknowledged that the environment did have an effect but believed that the criminal tendencies were born within by genes. Wilson thought more on the lines of the behavioural and conditioning theories, his idea was more of a learnt behaviour model of theories which may explain members of the same family committing crime but does not explain white collar crime. Youth crime prevention methods are most successful if it is individually tailored to the specific offender and their circumstances. This may include home visiting by a health care professional to give advice on infant care and development, nutrition. Alcohol and drug dependency seems to be an important factor within some families therefore avoidance could be included in educational and economic resource programmes.

References Cohen S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. U.K.

Pitts J. (2001) The New Politics of Youth Crime: discipline or solidarity? Sheffield. Russel House Publishing Welton D. (1999) The Body U.K. BlackwellPublishers. Williams K.S. (2004)Textbook on Criminology 5th Edition Great Britain Oxford University Press. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,3942405-103494,00.html accessed 31/01/2008 www.swarb.co.uk assessed 16/01/2008 www.studentsguardtosociology/cohen.html assessed 31/01/2008