Juvenile Justice in the United Kingdom - Case Study Example

In 1993 the Criminal of United Kingdom changed. What was once known as the Juvenile Delinquents Act was over turned, and the Young Offenders Act(ACT OF 1993) took its place. The preceding Act was based on the notion that adolescent offenders were just miniature adults that were "slow" (Youth in Conflict with the Law, 2000) and could not form the intent (mens rea) to commit a crime. The Criminal Justice act of 1993 mainly revolved around incarceration for these perpetrators, and just recently the adolescent has come to be accepted as separate from adults. The Young Offenders Act basis is that young people do not have the mans rea or culpability to perform most criminal endeavors; that they may know about justice and their rights, but their understanding develops with age. Since psychologist say that the majority of intellectual growth takes place throughout adolescents, the ACT OF 1993helps establish the idea that incarceration may not be the best way to deter young adults from committing future crimes. When studying the legislation which directs how young offenders should be treated, as this essay will do shortly, it is possible to detect certain trends. At some points the courts were directed to deal harshly with young offenders. Harsh treatment varies in severity, from hanging in the eighteenth century to the 'short, sharp, shock' of detention centres advocated more recently. A more humane approach is also detectable within the history of juvenile justice, whereby the correction or treatment of young offenders is directed away from the penal system and towards welfare experts. There is also some legislation which can be regarded as a reaction to a certain event, as has happened recently with regard to the treatment of young people who have committed very serious crimes but, although these examples are not very common, it provides concern as to how far policy is geared toward addressing issues. This essay will concentrate on the last 30 years of juvenile justice policy, a brief outline of the changes which have occurred in this area over a longer period will be provided in order that the debate may have some context historically (Morris & Giller 1987). Recent legislative changes and the underlying assumptions which have influenced them will then be discussed. Firstly, however, different approaches to juvenile justice will be considered. The notion that youth in trouble with the law may just be misguided, has the youth courts not treating these matters strictly as criminal issues, but helping to divert the juvenile from a potential adult life of crime. The Young Offenders Act starts with the idea that youth should be responsible for their actions, but we must take into account that some youth make mistakes and there is no evidence that long sentences reduce youth crime. (Singer and McDowell, 1987) Child development and juvenile experts agree, that the "correction" of young offenders should be positive and influence healthy development. They say that a sense of responsibility and judgment are less developed in adolescents and thus makes rehabilitation that much greater and that the traditional sentences and emphasis on incarceration do not work well. They believe that rehabilitation, where possible, can address the needs and circumstances under which a crime was committed, for example, killing/maiming animals at a young age often indicates an underlying psychosis. The Act itself was developed around the purpose; giving the young offender a chance to realize that they are headed in the wrong direction. It is not trying to adjudicate crime, but to merely "save" the child involved and reduce their chance of recidivism. They caught onto this notion through the determination that adolescent development is critical to the mental, cognitive, social and moral/ethical well being of the young adult (The World of Psychology, 1999). Psychologists believe that the years between 12-17 are the most detrimental to these factors and that one has to understand that human development is the function of the relationship between the maturing adult and his/her changing environment. The basic model is known as the Developmental Systems Theory and functions on several levels simultaneously: biological, psychological, interpersonal, familial, and societal. The most consistent findings suggest that factors such as nurturance, attachment, discipline and monitoring interact to form a response pattern that can later lead to criminal behavior. This behavior, for many, begins early in life with the first relationship that a child forges; the one with their parents. Inconsistencies in parenting, modeling inappropriate behavior, antisocial thinking and reinforcement of deviant behavior within the family unit often sets the stage for later antisocial thinking and behavior. Teens often adopt some of their parent's attitudes, ways of thinking and behavior; for example, researchers found a correlation between abusers and their likelihood to have grown up in an abusive home. Though not all deviant behavior is necessarily spawned from simply mirroring the caretaker, Diane Baumrind has identified three parenting types: authoritarian, authoritative and permissive. She concluded that the permissive parent, although rather warm and supportive, makes few rules and usually does not enforce them. They allow their children to make their own decisions and govern their own behavior. Children from this style are the most immature, impulsive and dependant; they also seem to be the least self-controlled and least self-reliant. These personality characteristics lead to a variety of self-destructive behavior, including, drug/alcoholic problems, promiscuous sex, poor academic performance and deviant behavior. Unfortunately for a child with socialization starting blocks such as these, they are left starved for acceptance; they lack the feeling of self-worth and usually have low self-esteem. Normally they suffer without even knowing it, because young adults are not aware that they are going through this socialization development. It's a subconscious crusade and the child begins to look elsewhere to compensate for what they are lacking at home. A relationship with peers becomes increasingly important and membership in a peer group is central to an adolescent's happiness. They usually choose friends with similar backgrounds, interests and values. This is true of a child reared in what is termed a "dysfunctional" home; they tend to keep away from the crowd that makes them feel like misfits or outcast. This feeling is usually false and one that the individual thinks that everyone see them this way. Acceptance within a peer group is tied to conformity. Teens who conform to the group's rules are more welcomed then those you do not. The main issues that revolve around conformity and acceptance, countered with the home life, can lead to the formation of deviant tendencies or the general feeling that they must "go along" with everyone else as to not be alienated from the group. Peer rejection is the biggest fear amongst adolescents; it can be associated with unhappiness, alienation, poor achievement and with middle school children, dropping out and alcohol/drug abuse. However, the main problem with peer interaction has to do with the moral development of an individual. Adolescents tend to have a very flexible moral belief system and for the most part the need to be accepted outweighs the young adults moral beliefs of right and wrong. Early in adolescence their moral reasoning is governed by the standards of others rather than their own belief system. Sometimes for these at risk youngsters, their belief system is completely erased and they adopt main beliefs in accordance to what the rest of the group believes. They govern their actions by what is approved of by the group, for instance, taking a pull off a joint might be consider "loser-ish", not cool" etc. Experts agree that the highest level of moral reasoning cannot be reached if there is a dysfunction in the development somewhere. The highest level is when the individual can weigh moral alternatives and that ethical decisions are based on universal ethical principles. These principles emphasize respect for human rights, justice, equality and dignity for all people. Unfortunately with young adults, their moral belief system may not just be slow in developing, but ultimately be completely reversed to the societal norms. Adolescents struggle to deal with the changes in themselves and their environment, while along the way searching to establish their identity and find values to guide their lives. Not knowing were one belongs and who one is is big at this stage. So are there effects on incarcerated young adults' Experts say that incarceration influences development and that adolescents would suffer, not only from physical detachment from their families and social environment, but emotional detachment as well. This can lead to decreased social skills, isolation, loneliness and depression. Also, that the socialization process within a criminal environment can seriously warped. Criminal subcultures may not inhibit, but foster criminality. This leaves the criminal justice system wondering if detention itself actually increases recidivism and other negative youth development. Confinement in juvenile facilities may fail to deter criminal behavior because the experience of repeated confinement becomes normalized. These youth begin to expect time in detention centers and some even think of it as a rite of passage. The Act of 1993 recognizes that for an adolescent to become a mature, functioning adult, the stages of development must not be ignored. The ACT OF 1993helps this by avoiding labeling the individual as a juvenile delinquent or criminal. They base this on the idea that if you refer to someone long enough as, for example - stupid, they will in turn start believing and functioning in that manner. The ACT OF 1993also realizes that not one size fits all when it comes to sentencing and maybe a diversion from the system is necessary to try to incubate the idea that they are not lost causes. This is why the ACT OF 1993offers many young offenders a chance to help themselves by offering such alternatives as the Alternative Measures, under the assumption that they are just misguided. This alternative is usually used for adolescents when it is their first offence or even for less serious offences that are committed. For the young offender to participate in this program, they must meet a certain criteria: 1.They must voluntarily participate 2.They must acknowledge their offence 3.They must successfully complete their program. (Canadian Criminal Code, 2000). An offenders program can consist of a variety of different things; for example, the offender may have to maintain a job for the duration that is determined. H/she may also have to complete so may hours of community service and attend anger-management on a regular basis. It all depends on what is mandated for them. This is a program often used because the young offender is kept close to the community and able to see and maybe realize the extent of the damage that they caused. It also affords them the opportunity to make the necessary changes in themselves and offers the young offender structure that maybe they were lacking, because if they do not complete their program in the allotted time, the charges will follow through. This gives incentive to the young person to perform well and improve. Alternatives other than mandatory sentencing tries to assist the adolescent in developing properly; to understand the full impact that their actions will eventually take on their lives. Unfortunately for the amount for the amount of people that support the Young Offenders Act, there are probably twice as many critics. These critics say that the issue of rehabilitation has made detention centers and other correctional institutions soft. However, under present circumstances the media has shifted it's focus from the children in trouble, to menacing youth whom the public should fear. Young people committing serious offences have captured the headlines. The critics accredit this the installation of the Young Offenders Act. What the majority of citizens fail to realize is that the media tends to sensationalize these cases and give the impression that this is the norm, when, infact, these cases are rare. This leads to the idea that the Act is to lenient when it comes to dealing with young offenders, and they want more punitive approaches. The basic feeling is that the age of what is considered a youthful offender should be lowered and more regular transferring of these offenders to adult courts. In actuality statistics prove differently; from the period of 1986 to 1993 the number of guilty pleas in youth court remained steady and the number in custody rose to 61%. Most of these were property offences. The handling of youth offenders when compared to adult offenders shows that their treatment is harsh, in 1992 the rate of detention for adults was 151 per 100,000; for youth is was 219 per 100,000 (Youth Crime in United Kingdom: Public Perception Vs. Statistics, 1999). Finally it is not uncommon for a young offender to serve a full sentence, while adults, on average, will only serve one third and two thirds of their sentence. So, while the media harps on the fact that the Supreme Court should amend the Young Offenders Act, the truth of the matter is that it is trying to do it's job. There is no 100% when it comes to law and the enforcement of it, take a look at Karl Holmolka. Karla committed an incredibly heinous act, but she didn't get a harsh sentence. So, if the public wants to reform the ACT OF 1993, why not every other part of the Canadian Criminal Code as well, the Young Offenders Act cannot be the only injustice. There are two major approaches to juvenile justice, the welfare approach and the justice model. The justice model, has as its cornerstone the notion that the punishment meted out should be proportionate to the crime committed; as such it is commonly known as the "theory of commensurate deserts" (Hudson 1987: 38). Proponents of this model favour a legalistic and offence-oriented system, so that children and young people, if found guilty at a trial where they are entitled to legal representation can be punished for an act committed. Hudson (1987: 37-38) suggests that the increasing popularity of the justice model 'is due in large measure to the way in which it appears to offer all things to all people'. To those who favour consistency in sentencing over the discretion of welfarist approaches, a sentencing structure is available; to those who favour strictly punitive justice over child-oriented welfare approaches, 'swift and sure punishment' is guaranteed; and to those who favour the more welfarist approach, the justice model, while providing many alternatives to custody, offers to imprison only the most serious of offenders. The welfare model of justice, which was at its most popular in the 1960s, has as a central feature a theory of depoliticisation; the assumption being that "..juvenile offenders, unlike other juveniles in trouble, were not responsible for the circumstances which brought them before the juvenile court. The juvenile court, therefore, was to focus its attention on the status of the juvenile, rather than his or her conduct and its function was to remedy this rather than punish the offence." (Morris & Giller 1987: 81-82). In short, the problem of crime is placed in the context of a wider deprivation. The welfare approach to juvenile justice, then, proposes a substantial shift in power, away from the courts and legal profession, and towards welfare professionals. As Smith et al (1988: 29) note, the criminal justice system in England and Wales has developed over centuries, and is founded on the concept of 'natural' justice. Natural justice, in its turn, is based on the premise that, firstly, an individual may not be judge in their own cause; and secondly that, in the words of a 1924 judgement "it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." (op cit: 31). It is this model that the juvenile justice system in England and Wales, as well as a great many criminal justice systems in other countries, is based on. The juvenile legislature has been modified a great many times over the last 30 years, but the actual foundations of the system which was essentially a system aimed at adults - have never been explored. It is believed that in the eighteenth century, when the age of criminal responsibility was seven, the majority of offenders who were hanged for crimes were under the age of 21. During the next century modifications gradually occurred when the first prison for offenders under 18 opened on the Isle of Wight, and the distinction between children and adults before the law was made. The 1908 Children Act established juvenile courts which, although recognising that young people have different needs to adults, merely replicated the procedures of adult courts - "the prevailing idea was that the juvenile was a wrongdoer and the old procedures for dealing with adult offenders were thought to be appropriate in most respects for dealing with juveniles." (Morris & Giller 1987: 11). The period 1908 to 1933 was a distinct example of the 'justice' model of punishment of juveniles. In 1908 specialised centres for the detention of young people were set up, the first being in Borstal in Kent. The 'Borstal Philosophy' was based on the regimes of public schools, advocating discipline and work training. The 1933 Children and Young Persons Act made provision for the education and training of young offenders, as well as extending the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to 17 year olds. The Act also raised the age of criminal responsibility from seven to eight, placed restrictions on the media's powers to publish the identification of young offenders and included Section 53, which concerned the treatment of children or young adults who commit grave offences. The period before the Second World War saw emergence of the 'welfare' model of justice, where the legislature and judiciary concerned themselves for the first time with directives which are in 'the best interests of the child or young person'. After the War, along with Acts to disperse the 'Five Giants' came another Criminal Justice Act. The 1948 Criminal Justice Act saw the abolition of corporal punishment and the introduction of detention, attendance and borstal centres. The 1950s saw an increase in juvenile crime, and calls for harsher treatment for young offenders. However, as the Ingleby Committee of 1956 which, chaired by Viscount Ingleby, was set up to review the juvenile court, remarked "It is not possible any longer to feel sure that our methods of dealing with the problems of children in trouble...are generally sound and sufficient and are necessarily developing along the right lines". ( cited in Morris & Giller 1987: 60). The Committee, which pointed out the differences between the delinquent and the deprived, suggested that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 14, and that below this age any proceedings to do with juvenile offenders should be taken in a welfare setting. The Act that followed the Report of the Ingleby Committee, the 1963 Children and Young Persons Act, reflected some of the sentiments but stopped short, in that the age of criminal responsibility was raised to 10 and not 14. A breakthrough was made at this stage in that the Act empowered local authorities to allocate resources for the prevention of delinquency in their area, thus viewing the concept of juvenile crime as part of a more complex social environment and also introducing the notion of 'intervention' and 'prevention' within juvenile justice. Many workers within the juvenile justice system in England and Wales today continue to view the philosophy introduced by the Ingleby Committee as the most appropriate in this field; and they attempt to work within that particular framework despite what may be viewed as the conflicting philosophy which is at the root of the most recent Criminal Justice Acts. Before the next Act of Parliament to affect the treatment of juvenile offenders was passed, there came two White Papers; the first, in 1965 entitled 'The Child, Family and the Young Offender' recommended that a system of family courts should replace the existing juvenile courts. This suggestion was in keeping with the welfare model of justice prevalent at this time. Indeed, in 1978 the Conservative Political Centre produced a pamphlet advocating family courts as an improved alternative to magistrates courts when dealing with marital breakdown and the situations that may arise from a divorce or separation. The authors of the 1965 White Paper also saw the benefits of this informal, less adversarial setting while dealing with young offenders. In England and Wales the idea did not advance any further than the White Paper, although there is a system of family courts in Scotland which is viewed the most appropriate by some practitioners. The second White Paper 'Children in Trouble' was published in 1968, and although the authors recommended that young offenders aged 14 to 17 should be diverted away from the formal system of courts as much as possible, with the cessation of prosecution for the those aged under 14, the authors proposed that juvenile courts be retained. The result of six years consultation was the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act, which is considered to be the most welfare-oriented Act to do with young people. One of the sentences made available to the court after the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 was Intermediate Treatment (IT), with the intention of phasing out attendance and detention centres. However, by the mid 1970s IT had become a provision solely for social compensation involving education and therapy and only very rarely as an alternative to custody. Comparable to the philosophy of the justice model, IT became all things to all people (Smith 1979: 93); this was, in part, due to the fact that there was no fixed definition of IT allowing magistrates and others involved to interpret its meaning depending on which young offender they had before them. This Act broadened the scope of juvenile courts to include care proceedings as of right to juveniles aged 10 to 14, and optional for those aged 14 to 17. This Act was heralded as a new dawn in juvenile justice, the court was now able to issue care orders if they believed that the welfare of a child or young person was in danger. It was in the hands of the Local Education Authority to inquire into the possibility for care orders, and this was considered to be beneficial to the young person in that a partnership was required in order to meet the best interests of the child. Although welfare elements contained within the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act were never implemented, the intentions - which were mainly of a social compensatory nature - reflected the general feeling that the justice model was not working. The 1972 Criminal Justice Act saw the beginning of the trend to treat juvenile offenders less harshly, that is, to make greater use of cautions and fines and encourage greater parental responsibility. Ashworth notes that this "demonstrated that it is possible to greatly reduce the severity of response to offenders without risking new waves of youth crime." (Ashworth 1992: 20) The Criminal Justice act ten years later legislated that imprisonment or Borstal training were no longer options for persons under the age of 21 found guilty of an offence; detention and youth custody centres were the options for young people found guilty of a crime deemed so serious as to warrant custody, under S53(2) of the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act. The other options made available in the Act, with the exception of giving young people the right to legal representation, saw a definite move towards control, and an emphasis on parental responsibility. The care order that had been introduced to the judicial system in 1969, had 'fallen into virtual disuse' and was abolished by the Children Act 1989; it was suggested that provision should be made for children and young people who were in need of 'care' to be diverted before reaching the criminal justice system. "As well as recognising the substantial decline in the use made of the care order, the government has noted that a care order in criminal proceedings conflicts both with the principle of determinacy in sentencing and with the government's view of the importance of parental responsibility." (Ashworth 1992: 16) The Criminal Justice Act 1991, brought with it sentencing guidelines and a move towards more alternatives to custody. The act also allowed the maturity of young people aged 15 to 17 to be taken into account, as opposed to using the 17th birthday as hard and fast proof of development into adulthood. The protection of child witnesses was also increased when video recordings of child testimonies were allowed. In 1991 Youth Courts were introduced to replace juvenile courts, together with an extension of jurisdiction so that the range of young people eligible to be tried as juvenile is increased one year to age 17. Parental responsibility is again strongly emphasised, as is post-custodial supervision for offenders under the age of 22 (Ashworth 1992: 42). This condition is compulsory and failure to comply or a default could result in the young person being readmitted to prison, a fear which was raised after the publication of the 1991 White Paper 'Crime Justice and Protecting the Public'. Morris & Giller (1987: 1) note that "systems of juvenile justice do not, of course, exist in a social policy vacuum. They co-exist alongside other systems or networks of social control which also seek to regulate the lives of juveniles." BIBLIOGRAPHY A ASHWORTH et al The Youth Court Waterside Press 1992 A ASHWORTH et al Introduction to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Waterside Press 1992 (b) S ASQUITH Children and Justice - Decision making in Children's hearings and juvenile courts Edinburgh University Press 1983 E BURNEY Sentencing Young People - What went wrong with the Criminal Justice Act 1982 Blackmore Press 1985 CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL The case for Family Courts - A Report by the CENTRE Society of Conservative Lawyers Conservative Political Centre 1978 HMSO White Paper 'Crime Justice and Protecting the Public' cm 965 HMSO 1990 HMSO House of Commons Parliamentary Debates Weekly Hansard - Issue No 1657 23 May to 26 May 1994 HMSO 1994 J HOLT No Holiday Camps - Custody, Juvenile Justice and the Politics of Law and Order Association for Juvenile Justice 1985 B HUDSON Justice Through Punishment - A Critique of the 'Justice' Model of Corrections Macmillan Education 1987 B A HUDSON Penal Policy and Social Justice Macmillan Press 1993 A MORRIS & H GILLER Understanding Juvenile Justice Croom Helm 1987 NACRO NACRO BRIEFING NACRO December 1989 NACRO Preventing Youth Crime Juvenile Crime Committee; Policy Paper 3 NACRO 1991 NACRO Criminal Justice Act 1991 - Defendants And Offenders Under 18.... NACRO 1992 H PENGELLY Juvenile Justice Under the Tories University of East Anglia & Social Work Today 1985 C R SMITH et al Child Care and the Courts Macmillan Education 1988 R SMITH Children and the Courts Sweet & Maxwell 1979 Back to contents. Read More