The Law for the Protection of Children against Unnecessary Criminalization in the UK - Coursework Example

Introduction The UK government proposed the LASPO Act of as a bill and ascended it in The Act1 defines clear and flexible responses to behaviors of children and youths’ involvement in crime. Practitioners in the legal field have the responsibility of identifying methods, which will reduce the criminalization of children. The police and courts were targeted by the Act because they form avenues of justice. The police need to be most friendly to children based on an understanding that many children in crime are adolescents2. Legal procedures for the children attempt to avoid their imprisonment through methods that would reduce tendencies of further crime. One way of reducing the criminalization of children is establishment of a system that will work at keeping children under custody. Much guidance of the police on the rights and duties of children is another method that helps the youth to avoid crime. Looked after children, who are under care of local authorities have rights that the judicial system needs to safeguard3. This work explores the law for the protection of children against unnecessary criminalization in the UK. The work examines the juvenile law and gives particular emphasis to adjustments made to suit the prevailing conditions. Much of the efforts that the UK government puts in attempting to find the friendliest law are a response to the public appeal. The UK public has particular concern about how the police and the courts handle the youth. The Roles of the Police in Youth Justice The police form gateways for justice in terms of criminal deeds, which is why having out of court disposals (OOCDs) will make them have an easier time in dealing with petty crime4. There are a number of both social and health issues related to some members in the community that the police would help to solve. OOCDs provide a chance for the police to enhance processes that will contribute to rehabilitating petty law offenders. Rehabilitative processes contribute to curbing and change behaviors of some first-time lawbreakers and help to enforcing policy effect on the youth. From 20035, there has been an increase in the number of OOCDs dealt with per year. As much as tried cases have remained almost stagnant, incidences of cases successfully solved outside the court rose to about 40 % by 20086. Such figures represent a significant transformation in justice delivery to the citizens. Introduction of warnings about use of cannabis in 2004, as well as conditional warnings, gave pragmatic responses to some operational challenges. While giving responses to any offense, critical reforms come from the police because they are essential to justice because they provide a source for all court trials. All cases and trials in courts of law begin at a point of pushing the affected parties to the judicial system, which involve the police. It is critical that the British public has confidence about the appropriateness of the disposals as well as their effectiveness in finding solutions for petty crimes7. There should be attempts in place to review the OOCDs for adults and the youths. It comes with an understanding that a majority of children and the young people who get themselves in conflict with the law come from disadvantaged sections of the community8. OOCDs help to ensure that these part of the population gets quick trials and most importantly, in a fair way. There is an explicit analysis of the recent trends in the way youthful people involve themselves in crime. Understandably, the number of case drops given the effectiveness and rising popularity of OOCDs. The public should realize that statistics does not indicate that seriousness of the legislative nature of the children law is not the primary contributor to the drop. It is admissible that character among the youth changes with the shift in the patterns of the law9. Such a statement means that the child will always find appropriateness of legislation against them before they adjust their behavior. There are campaigns by the National Association for Youth Justices (NAYJ) for child-friendly youth justice mechanisms. NAYJ10 proposes the commissioning of a statutory framework based on rights of children involved in criminal activities. Development of Mechanisms of Early and Petty Offending Before the establishment of The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, responsibility for deciding responses to criminal acts of children was in the hands of the police. The police had the option of not doing anything, at times give informal warnings or still give formal warnings and take the children to court. Promotion and safeguarding of the welfare of children was a sole responsibility of Social Services Department (SSD)11. SSD was efficient in its provision of a variety of services that were relevant to those at risk of committing a crime. Among other services, intermediate treatment programs gave teenagers a chance to engage in positive activities12. There are variations to the conditions of child justice in 1996 when there was a youth justice system review. The review was an effort of the Audit Commission whose argument was that there were no initial efforts to curb crime among children. According to the commission, whatever efforts existed was concerned with safeguarding of the welfare of children. There was a contradiction between the police and SSD about crime committed by children. The Commission argued that about three in five children arrested by the police have at one time received warnings from the police in what the children established as lectures. The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 gave a chance for exercising inflexible responses to offending by children. The police are now needed to reprimand children, only out of an offense. The children are supposed to receive three warnings after which they could face the law. It is important to note that the rate of cautioning the offenders should not be below two years. The move has helped to shape approaches to youth justice far. Implications for Practice of the Law The new framework that advocates the use of OOCDs gives a real opportunity to help reduce criminalization of children. The act only challenges the principal players found at the local levels on how to find effective ways of decision-making, especially while comparing the police and SSD13. The first challenge is ensuring that the children get the needed assistance as early as they could to provide formal intervention. The second challenge is the determination of how some factors in the lives of child influence the type of decision taken against them. The third problem concerns consistency of the decision-making process by the concerned parties. Remanding Children There exist significant variations in the way that the remands should operate. The changes came from increased concerns about the overall numbers of youth and children under custody of the police. There were initial indicators that the number of children in the cells had dropped, yet the number of cells did not reduce. For the reduction in the use of remands for custodial functions, there were changes effected from April 2013. There was an introduction of a single custodian remand for 12-17-year-old children in place of what had previously existed. The former remanding method had many complications because of the way it categorized the children. According to the Children Act of 199814, remanded children will be termed as Looked after Children. The law provided that the children in custody would have all the privileges enjoyed by the rest of the children15. Another provision of the new remanding law is that the costs of all the remanding procedures shall fall to the local authorities. If the children fail to receive bail, they will go to the local authorities’ remand, which is of lower quality in comparison to the new remands. The new law also provides that 17-year-old children in the remands will have a particular a chance of not being automatically kept in the local authorities’ custody should they fail to pay bail. Children will have better terms at the remands, which points to efforts in place for fair treatment of children. Procedures for Sentencing of the Youth As much as there are challenges, the flexibility OOCDs gives chance for the delivery of proportionate responses to children who are troublesome. The approach extends to new options that the courts have except for two instances. The first falls under community options. Judges will have the option of allowing the children a conditional discharge should they plead guilty of a first-time offence16. The law still provides for a softer approach to handling children because of a thought that an adolescent is likely to commit some crimes unknowingly. The law terms such criminal offences as low-level offences, which do not call for an action plan. Therefore, the children shall not be subject to an automatic action plan that calls for prosecution in the courts. The flexibility of the law allows for more time for the involved parties to find the most useful and appropriate method of tackling the mistakes. The law still identifies the need for allowing children second and third chances with the law. Another change in the law directs changes in the manner that the Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YROs) influence the children. With the flexibility of the new law, the orders now may have adjustments to suit the current situations. The meaning of such a provision is the order may end earlier and do not call for further prosecution or still extended for a maximum of six months for the provision of more time of investigations. The law also removed a provision that necessitated the provision of evidence from a medical officer as a mandatory part of the law. The law of requisition of such evidence was a provision formerly under the Mental Health Act of 198317. There are indicators that the government and the law perceive the children as a part of the community that is vulnerable to crime. Ways of handling the children now differ from the rest because the children are known to be minors. The children need a guideline on the legal procedures and knowledge of what is required of them. Detention of Children at the Police Stations and the Law There is a trend in the UK and Wales that using custody for children damages the idea of rehabilitation. There are suggestions that the process of holding children in detention should only apply as the last option in dealing with crimes committed by the children. This idea of reduced use of custodial approaches for children is a provision under The United Nations. The Youth Justice System has an obligation of reducing children population in police custody. The court systems of the two countries need to consider alternatives to custodial approaches for the children. In the recent past, there is an established Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act of 2012. The new law illegalized remanding of suspects not unless there is a provision for such an action. The 17-year-old suspects were also included in the category of younger children. The law for this case gives a concern for the children by ensuring that there are no harassments outside the lawful provisions. As mentioned earlier changes so realized in the legislation have helped the number of children under deprivation of liberty to reduce. According to reports published by the judicial system in 2013, there were 1,278 children detained. The number represented a fall of about 57 % in comparison to 200818. As much as the numbers of children in detention decreased, NAYJ19 finds criticism in the courts by claiming that the figures do not reflect the expectations of the law. NAYJ has concerns for the absence of corresponding attention given to children that the police detain after arresting them. There are statistics that the numbers of children dropped, which indicates that the levels of children involvement in crime have a low prevalence. The government started a move in 2008 to reduce the number of first-time entrants to the youth cells. The method entailed using alternative methods such as community resolutions and youth restorative disposals. Alternative methods would involve the utilization of the police to tackle petty criminal activities without arresting the offenders. Despite enforcement of the law, the police arrested and detained about 200,000 youths in 2001. Out of the arrested cases, only a third went through the required prosecution procedures, meaning that there was insufficient evidence to charge the rest in courts. The law still stated that from 2013, if the police arrest a 17-year-old, there should be an adult present at the police station to support and advise the affected person. The adult also needs to make confirmations of fair treatment of the child and give the required details of the child. The adult will still have a responsibility for ensuring that the proceedings at the police station fall in line with the laid down rules. The rules are stated in the UK police Codes of Practice20. The Right to Bail Following Charge In the event that a child faces criminal charges, it is the duty of the custody officer to decide on whether the arrested person can claim a bail. Children stand a chance of bailing for all offences except for manslaughter, murder, and rape. The police may refuse to warrant advancement of bail on the ground of their reasoning, which for this case relates to the investigation. Such information refers to the police being dubious of the information that the child gives relating to their identity. Other reasons could be the fear that the child would evade attending court sessions and if the cases might warrant imprisonment. At times, the police may refuse to bail the child if they believe that the child may not have safety away from the remand. Conclusion There are campaigns that seek to establish a Youth Justice System that is friendlier to the child. The system sought after also works to ensure protection of rights of the youth in the hands of the police. The methods discussed in this paper indicate the efforts adopted by the government of the UK in solving the controversies. OOCDs help the police to tackle petty criminal activities that the children may engage in doing. There are specific concerns about the numbers of children involved in crime with many of the concerned parties seeking to reduce criminalization of the children. The police need to make the process of juvenile justice easier for the children. The law for this case provides for differentiation between adult justice and that used for the youth. Arresting the underage requires that the police give them a three-time notice with the third coming within not less than two years from the second21. In general, the law seeks to reduce criminalization of children with an understanding that they are inexperienced and naive. Softening the law does not however; mean that there is not trial for children who break the law. The government seeks to make the process of trial for juveniles less pinning and pressing on them. Bibliography Advice guide, Children who are looked after by the local authority (citizens advice bureau 2015) accessed 20 January 2015 Children Act 1989 s 1(41) (d) Childrens Rights Alliance for England, Childrens Rights & the Law (crae.org 2014) accessed 20 January 2015 Clinks, Clinks Briefing on Youth Justice (clink.org 2011) accessed e.g. 11 January 11 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s 37(1) (c) Department for Education, The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations: Volume 2: Care Planning, Placement and Case Review [Supplement] Looked after children and youth justice. (GOV.UK 2014) accessed 20 January 2015 Di Hart, Children in Police Detention [2014] NAYJ 1, 20 January 2015 Eileen Munro, The Impact of Audit on Social Work Practice (lse.uk 2004) accessed 20 January 2015 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s 10(1)(c) Lorna Elliott LLB (Hons), Barrister, Police and Court Bail (courtroom.co.uk 2015) accessed 20 January 2015 Mental Health Act 1983 s 20(1) (c) Ministry of Justice, Consultation on out of court disposals (GOV.UK 2014) accessed 20 January 2015. Ministry of Justice, Court statistics (quarterly) Oct-Dec 2012 (GOV.UK 2013) accessed 20 January 2015 Sentencing Guidelines Council, Overarching Principles – Sentencing Youths (judiciary.gov 2009) accessed 20 January 2015 Sheffield out of school network, Key legislation for working with children [2014] SO 1, 3 SSD, Role of Social Services (Care.UK 2015) accessed 20 January 2015 The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s 10(1) (1) Tim Bateman, Children in conflict with the law: an overview of trends and developments – 2010/2011 [2010] NAYJ 1 UK government, have you got what it takes (GOV. UK 2012) accessed 20 January 2015 Wiltshire Council, Youth Rehabilitation Order - Details of Specific Requirements (Wiltshire.gov 2015) accessed 20 January 2015 Youth Justice Board of England and Wales, Use out-of-court disposals: section 1 case management guidance (GOV.UK 2014) accessed 20 January 2015 Read More