The Contemporary Youth Justice System Flashcards
Briefly, how has the youth justice system developed over time?
Separate systems suggest we view children as distinctively different to adults, differences in maturity highlights the need for this. Changes are historically rooted. In Medieval times, children were sentenced like adults, subjected to capital punishments, appeared before same adult offender courts, little distinction between two life periods. This changed in 19th century.
Due to emergence of ‘childhood’ and conceptualisation of it which influenced legislation and campaigns (child saviours).
Due to emergence of first criminal statistics which showed kids and adolescents engaged in a disproportionate amount of crime which led to concern that children were being morally contaminated by ruthless adult offenders in the same prisons as them, made them worse in terms of their behaviour.
How does the age of criminal responsibility vary?
Lowest age of criminal responsibility in UK. Due to James Bulger case and moral panics over youths. New labour did this. Suggested children 10-14 don’t have ‘a mens rea’ (guilty mind). Neuroscientific evidence suggests 25 years old is when individuals are fully mature and rational. Age of criminal responsibility has nothing to do with empirical evidence, often determined by moral panics and politics.
What are the trends in youth crime?
Children and young people engage in a disproportionate amount of crime (Budd et al, 2005).
The relative normality of youth crime (Shapland, 1978; Wilson et al, 2006). (Moral panics over youth crime (knives) which is not the reality).
Most youth crime is relatively minor (Bateman, 2012).
Children and young people ‘grow out of crime’ (Rutherford, 1992).
Peak offending behaviour boys is 17, females is 14-15. Literature says girls are pressured to take on family orientated roles earlier on so they transition out of crime earlier on.
Youth crime falling. Take figures with scepticism, dark figure of youth crime. However it is more likely to be detected as they are more visible to the public eye, takes place on the street, less sophisticated. Official stats on youth crime influenced by police targets, in 2007/2008 police began ignoring trivial behaviour or dealt with it informally.
Self report studies indicate a decline in youth crime.
Who engages the most in youth crime?
Bateman (2017):
- Typically from working class backgrounds
- Almost 80% are aged 15-17
- Most are male
- BAME children are over-represented
What is the impact of policing on youth crime?
The most disadvantaged and vulnerable CYP receive most police attention (White and Cunneen, 2015; Webster, 2015).
Police contact increases likelihood of further and more intensive system contact.
McAra and McVie (2007; 2010) – amplified contact (the ‘usual suspects’).
Labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy (Lemert, 1967; McAra and McVie, 2007; 2010).
Disproportionality in stats due to criminalisation process and how police focus attention more on other groups.
Due to fact that certain children are more visible in the eyes of public and police.
Police are racist and homophobic which influences which groups they engage with.
The more the police come into contact with certain groups, the more likely they are going to pour resources into such a group (McAra and McVie, 2007, 2010).
Police contact leads to labelling, if child criminalised, leads to adopted master status and new identity
Police contact can make youth crime worse as a result.
What does the fall in figures regarding the number of first time entrants in youth crime suggest?
Increase in decriminalisation of certain youth acts influences the number of first time entrant.
Youths are being kept out system, trend of diversion.
Reduction of entrants is agencies/police trying to reduce costs and handing problems over to other institutions.
What are the differences between youth court and the crown/magistrates court?
It is an “essentially modified” (Taylor, 2016) version of the adult magistrates’ and crown courts (which deal with offenders aged 18 or above) in its style and approach.
- Less formal (less use of judicial language and use of defendants first name)
- If the victim wishes to observe the proceedings they are obliged to make a request to the court
- Reporting restrictions
- No pictures permitted to be published
What issues are there with the youth court?
Many youths are still tried in crown courts, due to severity of cases (max sentence in youth court is 2 years custody) and if committed alongside adults, it must be done in main crown court. (Taylor, 2016)
Labelling, formality and experience of crown court is damaging.
Those in youth courts suffer many problems (mental and social) so when sentenced, it cannot be amended, not flexible enough to deal with the needs of youths.
Solicitors have a lack of training, youths receive ineffective representation (Bateman, 2017).
Covid negatively impacted youth court. Backlog of cases, some youths remanded to custody, anxiety. There were virtual sittings but youths found it difficult to understand. (Harris and Goodfellow, 2021).
Youth rehabilitation order/sentencing - most are control orientated, curfews, attendance centres, unpaid work
What are Youth Offending Teams? (YOTs)
1998 Crime and Disorder Act introduced YOTS - Multi-agency teams providing a joined up/systemic response to multiple risk factors informing offending (social work, probation, police, education and health authority staff). It was a common approach based on preventing offending.
- Assessment of young people for rehabilitation programmes
- Support for those remanded in custody or bailed
- Court reports and assessments
- Supervision of those sentenced to community orders
- Provision of preventative services
Introduced by New Labour who saaw youth crime as complex. All members are meant to have a common approach and aim.
The Youth Justice Board was set up and tried to control youth justice practice at a local level. It set up processes that practitioners had to follow, ensured through audit and inspection. Increased control to ensure they adopted a risk-based response to youth crime.
What are the issues with YOTs?
De-professionalisation of staff (Pitts, 2001; 2003). Had to follow strict processes.
Spend a lot of time completing forms and assessments, miss out on developing relationships (essential in YOTs that trust and relationship is established between offender and YOTs).
Relational and creative aspects of practice undermined by practice standardisation (McNeil, 2006). Children not all same so to effectively address issues, need to respond in creative and unique way but due to number of processes, this is impossible.
Children only had access to them if they offended so YOTs were isolated from other services who took a more positive approach to wards welfare of children e.g. child/social services.
Concern towards net widening with the fact that many agencies are involved.
What are the current trends in terms of youths in custody?
Fall in average youth custody population:
- 2008 financial crisis led to development of cheaper ways to deliver youth justice, costs lots of money to house youths in custody, look for alternative response.
- New legislation. Wider community sentences.
- Government restricted budget, told institutions they had to pay for housing youths in custody themselves.
Young Offender Institutions (YOIs)
- 15-17 year old boys
- Similarity to adult prisons
- Large scale (up to 300 boys)
- Staff to child ratio – 1: 10
- Staff ratio leads to problem of inability to develop relationships
Secure Training Centres (STCs)
- 12-17 year old boys and girls (including those too vulnerable for YOIs)
- Smaller in size (up to 80 children)
- Staff to child ratio – 3: 8
- Private
- Ethos of punishment and control rather than rehab and therapeutic response
Secure Children’s Homes
- 10-17 year olds (the most vulnerable boys and girls)
- Small in size (largest holds 42)
- High quality educational and training provision
- Childcare rather than custodial ethos (Bateman, 2016)
What are the experiences like of those in youth custody?
Experiences of youth custody highly damaging (Goldson, 2002; 2005).
Almost half of boys (46%) in YOIs report feeling unsafe (Bateman, 2017).
The rate of self harm has almost doubled in five years - from 140 incidents to 290 incidents per 100 children (YJB, 2023).
2100 proven assaults in the year ending March 2022 (YJB, 2023).
Use of force by staff against young people has risen (80 instances per 100 CYP per month during 2022, 55 instances per 100 CYP per month in 2017) (YJB, 2023).
Girls in custody more vulnerable – twice as likely to commit suicide (Bateman, 2017).
Girls more likely than boys to be apprehended for assaults and restrained. (Due to gender stereotypes that girls shouldn’t be like this, they are deviating from the norm).
BAME girls more likely to be restrained by staff. (Due to racist stereotyping).
Is the youth justice system being proved ineffective? Should it be abolished?
Prison “systematically harms and damages children: physically; emotionally and psychologically” (Goldson, 2005: 83).
62.9% reoffend within one year of release (YJB, 2023).
Value for money high questionable – 58.3 million (46% of net youth justice expenditure) on youth secure estate (YJB, 2019).
Caring for CYP in penal custody (especially YOIs) is almost impossible for three reasons:
- Care subordinated to control
- Limited resources and low staffing levels inhibit meaningful engagement
- Staff training poor
