Knife Crime - British Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

Running Head: An Issue in Youth Justice - Knife Crime: British Criminal Justice System Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code and Name: University: Date Submitted: An Issue in Youth Justice - Knife Crime: British Criminal Justice System Introduction The issue of knife crime had dominated both the British media and political institutions alike. The problem is mainly concentrated in city areas, especially London. The knife crime ‘epidemic’, as it came to be known, is a representation of the way in which the British government has been dealing with issues of youth justice. New policies have recently been put in place in order to reduce this type of crime. The policies are in the form of tougher sentencing and robust policing (Webba, & Wyatt, 1999). However, these policies have not been successful in ensuring that the roots of youth violence, reproduction of conflict, insecurity and fear in urban areas are properly addressed. Thirty five percent of all the murders in 2007 were as a result of stabbings. Furthermore, there is evidence showing that serious wounding as a result of stabbing has been increasing steadily since the have 1950s until the mid-1980s (Hocking, 1989). Today, this rate continues to steepen. Evidence of youths carrying knives in order to victimize other young people was observed to be increasing steadily within the last decade. For instance, according to the House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee, (2008), the number of under-18s stabbed increased from 524 in 2003 to 931 in 2007. This is a reflection of the changes that affect the lives of British young people, especially those living in inner city areas. The brutality of violence caused by knife crimes, though perpetuated mainly by youths, has also contributed to the marginalization of this demographic group in matters of justice, social life and general attitudes (Goldson & Muncie, 2006). This has greatly contributed to exacerbation of knife crimes. Marginalization seems to be brought about by the fact that encounters with the police seem to be inevitable. Although stabbing offences have continued to increase throughout the 20th century, the ‘knife crime’ notion was largely absent. For instance, in the murder of Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor in 1993 and 2000 respectively, the enquiries that followed were not characterized by any mention of the weapons used. Lawrence was killed with a knife while Damilola was killed with a broken bottle. The notions of ‘gun crime’, which has been a preoccupation in the youth justice system in Britain, are problematic (Levi & Jones, 1985). The problem that the ‘gun crime’ notion creates leads confusion in terms of the policy responses that are put in place Carmichael & Ward, (2001). First of all, defining a crime on the basis of the weapon used is problematic since some weapons are illegal while others are not. Moreover, it is not easy to tell the number of crimes that should be considered in order for a crime to be categorized using a unique term. Unlike handguns, knives are readily available and are not illegal (Peter, 2009). There is no available national trend data on crimes involving use of knives in England. In cases where such data exists, claims of under-reporting are often made (Dyer, 2008). The 2006-2007 report by the British Crime Survey (BCS) indicates that knife-enabled crime remained stable, with 30% of all male-on-male homicides being carried out by ‘sharp instruments’ in the Metropolitan Police Area, recorded knife crime fell by 15.7% within the same period. The question that still remains open is on the number of knife crimes that go unreported as well as the knife-carrying population. Such misgivings have been very influential in the recent decision to try and extend the BCS in order to cover youths who are below the age of 16. OBTJ: A youth justice system that does not work In 1998, the British government made drastic reforms to the country’s youth justice system (Pudney, 2003), (Walker, 2003). Today, a decade later, the reforms have yet to put in place a system that is based on crime reduction (Squires, 2009). The situation is partly blamed on the determination by law enforcement to bring more and more offences to justice. It appears that the belief among the public, that the punitive approach is the best answer, is the biggest motivator of those who implement the reforms to the youth justice system. The public concern over young people who involve themselves in knife crime seems to be rising (Brown, 2001). Although most young people in Britain are law-abiding, a small number of them end up become repeat and severe offenders. The resulting pressure on politicians leads to creations of tough-looking, though highly ineffective legislations. The counter-productivity of these legislations is made worse by inability by the public to understand the country’s youth justice system. When this happens, the confidence of the public in such a system becomes very low. In the past ten years, ‘coercive’ approaches aimed at deterring young offenders through many tough sanctions have not been effective (Shaw, Tunstall & Dorling, 2005). Many targets re aimed at reducing offences by targeting the offenders. Through targets set on the basis of ‘offences brought to justice’ (OBTJ), greater focus has been put on the courts and the police, instead of the root of the problem. One of the consequences of such a system is an increase in the number of minor offenders who are severely punished. The rising number of young people being charged and punished continues to increase public anxiety about the youth justice system (Brown, 2001), (Goldson, 2002). This may pervasively contribute to more punitive and counter-productive policymaking. As police continue to pursue the set OBTJ targets, it becomes difficult for the goal of crime reduction among the youth to be achieved (Eades, 2007). The reforms put in 1998 were aimed at reducing crime (Muncie, 1999). The government, upon realizing that some of the tough targets set were not working, abandoned them (Sharp, 2005). This seems to be one of the reasons why responsibility for youth justice was given to the ministry of Justice in coordination with the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The OBTJ ended up becoming a very serious problem for youth justice, mainly because the easiest crimes to detect are those that are committed by children, who are also very easy to arrest. Such an acknowledgement has been made by the National Criminal Justice Board. According to government research findings, the young offenders of 2005 were faced by fewer risk factors compared to those who committed crimes in 2002. That is, in 2005, the British youth justice system was likely to produce fewer offences. Additionally, the type of violent crimes that were brought to justice was associated with low levels of re-offending. Moreover, 81% of young offenders in 2005 received a first-tier penalty or a pre-court disposal. Recent developments in ‘knife crime’ policy building and legislation In 2008, plans by the British government to deal with youth knife crime have faced stiff resistance from opinion leaders. The plans had been put in place amid denial by the British home secretary, that incident of knife crime were on the rise. Evidence of increase in knife crime was obtained from hospitals, where various accident and emergency (A &E) departments recorded an increase in the number of people who had been ‘assaulted with a sharp object’ (Wright & Kariya, 2008). Similarly, A&E studies published in 2007 indicated that between 1997 and 2005, there was a 30% increase in the number of people who had been admitted into hospital after being stabbed with sharp objects (Keegan, 2009). Unlike crime data on the prevalence of knife-enabled crime, evidence gathered from hospital admissions supports the existing popular public perceptions of increase in knife crime rate. The A&E data seems to be more reliable compared to police crime statistics. This is mainly because some people are reluctant to report knife crime incidents to the authorities. Data that revealed the true scale of the knife-crime ‘epidemic’ was brought to light by the political controversy surrounding street violence, young people and knife crime. The recent concerns were neither raised by the scale of knife injuries nor by the frequency of injuries. Indeed, the frequency of injuries seems low but the trend is alarming. In 2006-2007, there were less than 200 youths below the age of 16 requiring medical attention for knife injury. This figure, though low, was alarming since it had doubled in only 5 years! Recent incidents of knife crime In a recent review of incidents recorded with the police, it has been noted that many violent crimes are being misclassified (Maxwell, 2007). However, these findings are based on a few UK police forces. Therefore, more research is needed in this area. In December 2008, the Conservative Party released New Knife Crime Statistics that indicated that in the year 2007-2008, were 277 deaths from stabbings in Wales and England. This was the highest figure to be recorded in the last 30 years. The government claimed that the figures may be misleading since they may not be confined to stabbings with knives alone. This reveals the extent to which the issue of knife crime trends has been heavily contested. Every July, a definitive review of the state of crime in the UK is always published. This review takes the form of two documents: the British Crime Survey (BCS) and the Police Recorded Crime Statistics). The most worrying thing is that variations always emerge between the figures indicated in these reports. For instance, in 2008, according to the PRCS report, about 22,000 knife crime incidents were recorded. On the other hand, the BCS survey indicated that there were around 130,000 incidents. This shows a variation of 108,000 between the two reports. This variation may be attributed to misclassification of violent crimes. Both the PRCS and BCS figures are inaccurate because of several shortcomings in the way both sets of figures were compiled. In the PRCS, the fact of the matter is that many incidents go unreported to the police. According to some estimates, four in every five incidents in Britain go unreported. They are therefore not included in the crime statistics. On the other hand, the BCS figures are generated through questioning a sample that is representative of UK residents. About 47,000 people were questioned in the survey that yielded the 2008 BCS statistics. The irony of it is that the findings were then extrapolated to a population of about 60 million residents. It is a known fact that most crimes take place in definable area in various inner-city sections (Muncie, 1984), (Pilcher & Wagg, 1996). This creates an enormous scope for error. Another error is caused by failure by the statisticians to interview anybody under the age of 16 (many knife incidents in Britain involve youth who are in their teens). Trident gang culture and knife crime Britain’s knife crime epidemic is becoming a very worrying scenario today (Hough & Roberts, 2004). Many victims of knife crime-related incidents are confronted by gangs of teenagers (Greenwood, 2006). This problem has triggered a flurry of initiatives and campaigns to end the problem in the past decade. A significant fraction of the protagonists in this problem are people from the Caribbean community although white and African kids are being increasingly becoming involved too (Hall et al, 1978), (Wykes, 2001). One of most publicized incidents in recent times occurred in April 2010, and the victim was Paul Erhahon. The under-16 ‘gentle giant’ tried to get home after he was knifed in the chest by a rival knife-crime gang. Unfortunately, he collapsed and died near his front door. Just like Damilola Taylor, Erhahon’s parents had moved from Nigeria to Britain in search for a better life. Damilola, aged only ten, had been stabbed to deal in South-East London in 2000, an incident that caused a very huge public outcry. His killers were two notorious brothers, Ricky and Danny Preddie, whose father is of Jamaican origin. They were sentenced only last year. It took such a long time to gather evidence against them because majority of the witnesses were afraid of terrified of testifying against the Preddies. They were aged only 12 and 13 when they committed the time (Smith & McVie, 2003). Since February 3, 2010, four other boys have died from gunshots or stabbings in London. The Erhahon killing was only one part of a turf war, whereby gangs from his team (located in Thatched House) clashed with those of Cathall area. This situation is typical of the type of gang rivalry that exists in inner-city areas in Britain. The maximum sentence for someone found in possession of knife has recently been doubled to four years. Evidently, this does not deter thugs, some of who consider a prison sentence as a badge of honor; as an inevitable consequence of living a street life. Perhaps some of these young people are motivated by the luxury of some of Britain’s prisons. From October, 2010, the age of someone who is allowed to buy a knife legally will be increased from today’s 16 to 18 years. In 2009, about 90,000 knives were recovered during a national knife amnesty, although this did not have a significant effect in deterring knife crime. The new measures came into effect after the Violent Crime Reduction Act was introduced in November 2009. These measures seem to have come too late, considering that today, 50 teenagers become victims of knife crime every week in London, according to the Metropolitan Police. According to Norman Brennan, the director of Victims of Crime Trust and himself a police officer, a child is killed in Britain through stabbing every two weeks. Norman adds that gun homicides are outnumbered by knife killings three to one. Responses by the police and government towards knife crime British government has time and again showed concern about the increase in knife crimes. In 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to open a community center that was named after Damilola Taylor (Smith & Allen, 2004). The prime minister’s action was an attempt to draw the attention of the nation to the serious consequences of weapon carrying. Politicians and security practitioners alike have attempted to counter the knife crime culture by promoting a lifestyle whereby people do not carry dangerous weapons (Hallsworth, 2008). The Home Office introduced ‘tough’ new sentencing guidelines in the form of Crime and Violent Crime Action Plans. Knife amnesties have also been an area of focus by the British authorities. The Metropolitan Police Operation Blunt was introduced in all London boroughs in 2005. Later on, the police force in other areas adopted the operation. The actions of the police included hand-metal detection wands and mobile search arches. These tools were used in various ‘stop and search’ operations. They were complemented by efforts to remind retailers to refrain from selling knives illegally. According to Commander Mark Simmonds, head of Operation Blunt II, the police were able to arrest 5000 suspects and recovered 3200 knives after doing 150,000 searches. Most of these knives were ordinary penknives and ‘domestic’ knives rather than ‘weapons’. Criticism of the operation ensued, with police being accused of alienating some sections of communities. The widely held belief was that the police needed to better than ‘stop and search’ these communities in order to with their confidence. The Home Office also sponsored a research soon after the operation commenced, whereby doubts emerged as to the effectiveness of such actions to combat knife-enabled gang violence. Hit rates, even in targeted areas, seem to be surprisingly low. This suggests that police actions along are not likely to leave a huge impact on the knife-carrying culture. The British public seems to agree that effective policing must be complemented by wider educative and social initiatives. In 2008, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith agreed that the data provided by the A & E departments gave a more realistic picture of the extent of the knife crime problem (Muncie, 2009). Similarly, a report by the Public Accounts Committee Report, entitled: Reducing the Risk of Violent Crime recommended that the government should improve the manner in which it collects data on violence rates. Additionally, the report by the committee recommended that the Department of Health and Home Office need to establish a national system jointly. Such a system would facilitate the automatic sharing of depersonalized data on violent crime in the police force, hospitals, and Crime and Disorder Partnerships. According to estimates by Straclyde’s Violence Reduction Unit, between 50% and 70% of the region’s violent crime was not recorded by the police because it was not reported. Additionally, the analysis of the problem was hindered by lack of reliable data. It was noted that if a visit was likely to trigger a police investigation, victims tended to avoid treatment unless the injury was very serious. The issue of failure by victims to seek treatment for fear of triggering a police investigation also came up when the recommendations of the Street Weapons Commission were being read out. This unofficial commission of inquiry was chaired by wife of former British Prime Minister, Cherie Blair. The inquiry, which had been commissioned by Channel 4 in the summer of 2008, dwelt on the knife crime culture in five British cities: Liverpool, Manchester, London, Birmingham, and Glasgow. The background to the research was commissioned from the CCJS (Center for Crime and Justice Studies) at Kings College. This background research contained an analysis of data on crime within Britain as well as a crime profile of each of the five cities. Additionally, the effectiveness of the police in each area was assessed. It emerged that sharing of non-anonymous information between the police and A&E units was necessary. Some contributors to the Commission were taken aback by the commission’s central recommendation: the establishment of a specialist violence reduction unit. It was recommended that such a unit should be set up within the Home Office Unfortunately, although the recommendation seemed identical to the Strathclyde Model, it amounted to the creation of a new administrative section within the Home Office. This is unfortunate considering the widely held opinion that policing responses do not offer a long-term solution to various forms of street violence. Again, it was unfortunate that unless bureaucratic adjustments were made within the Home Office, the new attempts to deal with knife crime would also end up in failure. Conclusions The consequences of knife crime have been dire. Today, stabbings remain the chief cause of murder among today’s young people in Britain. Ministerial announcements continue to interrupt the steady progress of new labor criminal justice reforms. Sentences for carrying knives illegally have doubled although there is not significant progress seems to have been made if the results are anything to go by. Meanwhile, there is a rush of in-depth researches exploring why young people would want to carry knives. The explanations of these researches seem to be essentially similar. However, few methods exist of ascertaining and comparing different weapon-carrying rates. Today, the debate has turned on how adequate the available evidence is. The Home Affairs Select Committee is also on the spotlight over its enquiry into knife crime and youth violence. Although the knife amnesties that have taken place are symbolic, they are not important. Today, the A&E units are required to report all victims of knife injury to the policy, something that may discourage attendance into these units. In other words, the measures being taken in order to deal with knife crime may bring about a change in the gang knife -crime culture. The data on knife crime provided by the BCS and PRCS is far from accurate. Therefore, it cannot be relied on for policymaking. There are disagreements over the actual the growth rate of knife crime. Until such disagreements are settled, it may not be possible for the British government and the police to deal with this problem. In conclusion, there is lack of political will to address knife crime. The OBTJ targets do not seem to end knife crime either. All they do is to increase the number of young people who are brought to justice for belonging in knife-wielding gangs. As for now, focus is only on solving the short-term problems caused through knife crime through policing and enforcement. Reference Brown, S. (2001). Understanding Youth and Crime: Listening to Youth? Buckinghan: Open University Press. Carmichael, F. & Ward, R. (2001). Male unemployment and crime in England and Wales. Economics Letters, 73(1), 111-115. Dyer, C. (2008). Compulsory reporting of stabbings is no panacea for knife crime, surgeon tells MPs. BMJ 337, 2767. Eades, C. (2007). ‘Knife Crime’ A review of evidence and policy. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Goldson, B. & Muncie, J. (2006). Youth, crime and justice: critical issues. London: Sage Publications. Goldson, B. (2002). Youth Crime, the ‘Parenting Deficit’ and State Intervention: A Contextual Critique, Youth Justice, 2(2), 82-99. Greenwood, C. (2006). Firearms control: a study of armed crime and firearms control in England and Wales. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T. Clarke, J. & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the Crisis - Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc. Hallsworth, S. (2008). Gang talk and gang talkers: A critique. Crime, Media, Culture, 4(2), 175-195. Hocking, M. (1989). Assaults in south east London. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 82(5): 281–284. House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee (2008). Knife crime: seventh report of session 2008-09, Vol. 2. Hough, J. & Roberts, J. (2004). Youth crime and youth justice: public opinion in England and Wales. London: The Policy Press. Keegan, M. (2009). Duty in reporting stab wounds. BMJ, 338, 3139. Levi, M. & Jones, S. (1985). Public and Police Perceptions of Crime Seriousness in England and Wales. The British Journal of Criminology, 25, 234-250. Maxwell, R. (2007). Trends in admissions to hospital involving an assault using a knife or other sharp instrument, England, 1997–2005. Journal of Public Health, 5(2), 24-65. Muncie, J. (2009). Youth and Crime. London: Sage Publications. Muncie, J. (1999). Institutionalized intolerance: youth justice and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. Critical Social Policy, 19(2), 147-175. Muncie, J. (1984) Trouble With Kids Today - Youth and Crime in Post-War Britain, London: Routledge. Peter, S. (2009). The knife crime `epidemic' and British politics. British Politics, 4(1), 127-157. Pilcher, J. & Wagg, S. (1996). Thatcher's children?: politics, childhood and society in the 1980s and 1990s. London: Falmer Press. Pudney, S. (2003). The Road to Ruin? Sequences of Initiation to Drugs and Crime in Britain. The Economic Journal, 113(486), 182-198. Sharp, C. (2005). Delinquent youth groups and offending behaviour: findings from the 2004 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey. Home Office Online Report 14/06 Shaw, M., Tunstall, H. & Dorling, D. (2005). Increasing inequalities in risk of murder in Britain: trends in the demographic and spatial distribution of murder, 1981–2000, Health & Place, 11(1), 45-54. Smith, C. & Allen, J. (2004). Violent crime in England and Wales. Home Office Online Report 18/04. Smith, D. & McVie, S. (2003). Theory and Method in the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 43, 169-195. Squires, P. (2009). The knife crime ‘epidemic’ and British politics. British Politics, 4(3), 127– 157. Walker, G. (2003). Crime, gender and social order in early modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webba, E. & Wyatt, J. (1999). A comparison of fatal with non-fatal knife injuries in Edinburgh. Forensic Science International, 99(3), 179-187. Wright, J. & Kariya, A. (2008). Assault patients attending a Scottish accident and emergency department, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 90(6), 322–326. Wykes, M. (2001). News, crime and culture. London: Routledge. Read More