Youth Crime Statistics

YOUTH CRIME

Within both political and public debates, it is widely assumed that crime is rising

That crimes committed by young people, being a large part of the problem, are also rising and that offensive but often non-criminal conduct such as deviance, is also on the increase.

England and Wales have particularly high rates of youth crime paralleled only by our historically high youth custody rates. Prior to 2011, E + W had more people in custody than other European countries comparatively. Despite this, there has been a significant decline in youth custody.

For children, the figures are even higher and yet the Government continues to act as though prison is the best answer for preventing crime among young people.

It has been suggested that the current system was spending £100,000 a year for each young offender and "not getting very good results“ with 73% re-offending within the year.

There is a ratchet effect: if prison didn't work, then the answer must be more prison.

While overall youth crime levels and prison rates have significantly declined since the mid-1990's, the public and the politically powerful continue to fear that youth crime is rising. Often perpetuating a distinctly punitive attitude towards sentencing.

EVIDENCE OF CONTEMPOARY TRENDS IN YOUTH CUSTODY RATES

For July 2016:

The population of the secure estate for children and young people, for under 18 year olds was 861.This is a decrease of 29 from the previous month and a decrease of 142 from the previous year.

The overall population of the secure estate for children and young people, including those aged 18 years old, was 948. This is a decrease of 38 from the previous month and a decrease of 138 from the previous year.

Reductions have been seen in:

The number entering the system for the first time,

As well as reductions in those receiving disposals in and out of court,

Does this suggest that the current model of youth justice in England and Wales is one of decarceration?

Including those receiving custodial sentences

POLICY of DECARCERATION

The evidence for the current programme of decarceration is compelling:

A BMA study in 2013 found that many of the young offenders placed in custody, come from chaotic backgrounds, and are often victims of violence, abuse or neglect.

40 per cent had been homeless in the six months before entering custody.

24% of boys and 49% of girls, aged between 15 and 18 and in custody, have been in care.

Of 300 children and young people in custody and on remand, 12% were known to have lost a parent or sibling.

Approximately 60% of children in custody have ‘significant’ speech, language and learning difficulties ; 25-30% are learning disabled and up to 50% have learning difficulties.

Over a third of children in custody were diagnosed with a mental health disorder.

Even criminal legislation has acknowledged the need to reduce the use of custody to youth offenders:

The new Youth Rehabilitation Order: has encourage sentencers to use these robust alternatives to custody where they are available.

To promote community sentencing, sentencers must now provide a reason if they do not use an alternative to custody for those young people who are on the custody threshold.

The following community sentences have been replaced by the YRO:

Action Plan Order,
Curfew Order,
Supervision Order (and conditions),
Community Punishment Order,
Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order,
Attendance Centre Order,
Drug Treatment and Testing Order,
Exclusion Order and
Community Rehabilitation Order (and conditions).

Arrests and out of court disposals

Arrests

In 2010/11 there were 1,360,451 arrests in England and Wales of which 210,660 were of people aged 10-17.

Thus, 10-17 year olds accounted for 15.5 per cent of all arrests but were 10.7 per cent of the population of England and Wales of offending age.

Reprimands, Final Warnings and Conditional Cautions

There were 40,757 reprimands, final warnings and conditional cautions given to young people in England and Wales in 2011/12.

This is a decrease of 18 per cent on the 49,407 given in 2010/11, and a decrease of 57 per cent on the 94,836 given in 2001/02.

Penalty Notices for Disorder

There were also 5,571 Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) given to 16-17 year olds in 2011/12 and in 2011 there were 375 Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) given to young people.

In the last year the number of PNDs given to young people has gone down by 26 per cent and the number of ASBOs down 30 per cent.

Criminalisation

Our low minimum criminal responsibility bucks the worldwide trend, which is to raise the age, generally to at least 14.

Those countries that have an age of less than 14 tend to be Commonwealth countries or those that have an early association with the British legal system and reasons for retaining such a low age are thus, more connected with historical tradition than with consideration of children’s best interests.

Victimisation

Victimisation and offending are closely linked.

Children and young people who are victimised are more likely than others to break the criminal law, and young offenders are also more likely to have been victims of crime.

Locking up young offenders also makes them more likely to commit further crimes and be unemployed later in life, says the New Economics Foundation (2012).

Cost

Sending someone to prison is on average 12 times more expensive than a Probation or Community Service Order, which costs about £6 per offender per day:

Sending one young person to a Young Offenders’ Institution £42,000
- 1 year Community Rehabilitation Order £3,000
- 1 year Community Punishment Order £2,000
- 1 year Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order £4,000
- 1 year Drug Treatment Order £8,000
- 6 month ISSP £6,000

LEGAL

Instead of diversion to which our attention has turned to presently, early intervention was promoted. ‘Net widening’ became a desirable aim of youth justice policy.

Between 1997 and 2006, some 3,200 new criminal offences were created and some 60 crime-related bills were passed (Crawford, 2009).

POLITICAL

What has remained high in this period is 'noise' about youth crime with high levels of public anxiety, media scrutiny and political debate.

It is hard to disentangle this noise and the legal activity generated by the system response from objective measures. Political debate about youth crime has therefore created the problem it tries to address.

SOCIAL

Attention is still bring paid to the perceived problem of youth

This occurred in parallel with heightened public concern regarding delinquency but only this time, the focus has been on anti social behaviour as opposed to hooliganism

Wider factors such as the media, public opinion and political rhetoric, contribute to risk averse court, probation and parole decisions and hence play a role in unnecessary system expansion.

The type of reports that make the headlines in the local press relate to anti social youths which too has grew to acquire symbolic stature in recent years.

Definition of Youth

Provide an official/unofficial definition

The problem with definition of 'youth' and 'crime'

we automatically perceive our younger generations to be out and out delinquent

difference between 'crime' and 'deviance'

All acts of crime are deviant yet not all acts of deviance are criminal

Methods of Collection of Criminal Statistics

the main sources of data consist of official and unofficial reports achieved through recorded and unrecorded crime

Aims:

What is the question asking?

Objectives

How might you answer the question?

Context

In what context does the question relate to?

Content

What/Which research, studies, philosophies, theories, evidence have you analysed, evaluated, explored, discussed in an attempt to answer the question.

Reasoning

What was the reasoning behind these choices?

Recap

Aim

Objective

Main points of critical analysis/critical evaluation

There are encouraging signs that the Government’s recent interventions are making a difference to youth crime.

Fewer young people re-offend and those who do commit fewer crimes (between 2000 and 2007, the percentage of young offenders who re-offended within 12 months fell by 6.6% and the frequency of re-offending fell by 23.6%) .

The number of young people coming into the criminal justice system fell by 9% from 2006/7 to 2007/8.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said that there are currently many children who are not a threat to public safety that are put into custody.

Some young offenders, such as those from socially disadvantaged families, are more likely to be caught than others.

The Ministry of Justice have been quoted as saying those under 18 "should only be held in custody as a last resort and for the protection of the public"