por Gillian Dickinson 8 anos atrás
420
Mais informações
The question covers a number of central concerns. These are:
This map relates to section B of the exam, specifically question 1:
Policy of Decarceration
Within youth justice, it is important to reflect upon the central themes and contested dynamics and understand that youth justice as a system is a relative construct which is subject to the varying impulses of policy and law makers. One such theme being our over zealous use of custody for young people.
Historically, the public's and the Government’s perception of and “obsession” with teenagers on street corners had contributed to the sharp rise in the number of young people in prison’. The government’s continuing reliance on custodial sentences for young offenders, with more young people in custody than other European countries (besides Turkey). By 2011, the level of imprisonment for 14 to 17-year olds was double that in the early 1990s. Yet, trends in recorded/notifiable crime fell during this period.
In the last five years, there has been a significant declines in the caseload of the youth justice system with 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 (MOJ, 2016).
Even criminal legislation has acknowledged the need to reduce the use of custody for 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 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"
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.
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.
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.
The changes in policy brought about by the flagship slogan, ‘No more excuses’, was ideological rather than empirical and New Labour’s penal policies have been evidence-based only when their visibility has been low. Whereas high visibility initiatives have been driven by the need to be seen to be ‘tough on crime’, whatever the evidence may advise. This view is adequately illustrated by the belief that youth crime constitutes a crisis to which tougher policies were the only solution. For example, the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 was characterised by a preoccupation with surveillance and control which led to excessive intervention in the lives of young people and their families.
Between 1997 and 2006, some 3,200 new criminal offences were created and some 60 crime-related bills were passed (Crawford, 2009).
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Over a third of children in custody were diagnosed with a mental health disorder.
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.
Of 300 children and young people in custody and on remand, 12% were known to have lost a parent or sibling.
24% of boys and 49% of girls, aged between 15 and 18 and in custody, have been in care.
40 per cent had been homeless in the six months before entering custody.
For most of the eighteenth century (1700s) there was no concept of childhood in any recognizable modern sense. In other words, children tended to be expected to pass straight from physical dependence to something close to adulthood. The period of physical dependence was taken to last up to about age 7-10. After that most children were expected to work adult hours ... and if convicted of a crime were held fully responsible and punished as adults. In Britain and France the 1770s saw the gradual rise of the concept of an intermediate stage between physical dependence (infancy) and adulthood, namely childhood. The first books written specifically for children and some children's clothing began to appear for the first time. This development was largely confined to the middle classes, and for the poor it had to wait until well after 1850. The concept of adolescence - that is, a period between childhood and adulthood - is even more recent. I've deliberately avoided mentioning the Enlightenment, as the beginnings
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.
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.
There is a ratchet effect: if prison didn't work, then the answer must be more prison.
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.
