Youth Justice Policy in the UK

young person legal expert Policy in the UKY give awayh judge PolicyIn order of battle to evaluate why developments in early days jurist policy and practice since 1997 be a excite for celebration and c at a timern, the ideological needs and the wider social and political context leave alone be set. The wickedness and Disorder work out 1998 the youthfulness Justice and savage leaven run, 1999 and the Anti companionable Behaviour affect 2003 go out be discussed in terms of the motivating ideology and rational underpinning. The practical implications of the acts and their social consequences will be evaluated in order to demonstrate what the acts achieve and where they fail to be book the rights of the individual in the youth jurist system.Developments in youth umpire policy and practice in the previous decade have been root in an ideological context that incorporates both neo-liberal flackes of responsibility and chance concern (Muncie, 2006) and neo-conservativ e ideologies that entail an authoritarian realisation of policy (Muncie Hughes, 2002). However, cultural elements can non be undermined when considering factors that spark the formation of youth evaluator policy. Increasingly, a culture of apprehension and intimidation has arisen in the UK around night clubs youth. Muncie and Hughes (2002) point to cases such as the murder of 2 division old James Bulger by two 10 year olds as contributing factors to this fear culture. The manifestation of this cultural consciousness of fear is demonstrated in the coining of the term hoody to represent an intimidating youth in a hooded jumper (Sanders, 2005). Thus youth justice policy must(prenominal) be seen to appease these societal concerns. A result of this is that youth ar at risk of fellisation and marginalisation (Scraton, Haydon, 2002). The risk is of a presumption that members of youth culture be likely to, or already have committed a criminal act.To take care whether develo pments in youth justice policy should be celebrated or be regarded with concern, it is important to understand the aims of the wider context of New Labour Reform. Policy has been motivated by a desire to form a transition from penal to restorative justice (Gelsthorpe Morris, 2002). This is motivated by a culture of increasing understanding and act the offender with the implications of their actions and is reflective of the New Labour political stance to be tough on crime and the ca occasions of it. The resulting revolution in youth justice policy has been criticised for its failure to maintain a consis hug drugt ideology end-to-end (Goldson Muncie, 2006). The resultant risk is a confused, or muddled ideological attack to youth justice, and a contradictory experience between liberalism and conservatism for the offender passing through and through the reform system. However, this mixture of ideological approach is increasingly difficult to unify in a diverse multi-cultural societ y (Newburn, 2002 Fergusson, 2007).It is against this cultural and political backdrop that three significant pieces of youth justice commandment have emerged. These are the offense and Disorder trifle 1998, the Youth Justice and sorry secern constitute 1999 and the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003. The plague and Disorder Act 1998 employs principles of actuarial risk steering by imposing local authorities with the duty to implement risk reduction measures within a constituency (Moss, 2001 Farrington, 2002). These Community Safety Strategies are required to specifically address the prevention of youth crime. The practical payoffs of these strategies include the murder of parenting and minor safety orders, local curfews and action plan, detention and training orders (Scanlan, 1998). The Act brought into use the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) and refuted the previous assumption that individuals under the age of ten should not be criminalised for committing an offence. The A SBO is administered to individuals who are deemed to be behaving in a expressive style that may cause harm or distress to others.The use of risk management strategies to form Community Safety Strategies has been both supported and challenged. grow in valued analysis, they explicitly identify predictor vari satisfactorys for youth criminal activity providing a target area for interventions and preventative measures (Farrington, 1997). Such identified risk factors have frequently included impoverished socio-economic backgrounds, harsh and laughable discipline cultures and peer group influences (Loeber, Farrington Waschbusch, 1999). Cl first, successful prevention strategies aimed at upward(a) the conditions surrounding these risk factors are of benefit to the recent offender and to society as both enjoy im call downd welfare conditions. However, there are problems inherent in the de centralize approach to Community Safety Strategies. The quantitative approach dictates that conc epts are generalised, and the actuarial assessment strategies stress upon efficiency and streamlining through youth justice cognitive process (Kempf-Leonard Peterson, 2000). What is lost is a qualitative, individual approach to youth justice reform, and the individual consideration of the most beneficial (if not most efficient) process is absent. Case (2007) argues that this approach neglects to account for the experience of stakeholders such as youth workers and juvenile offenders. A combination of the quantitative and qualitative approaches would improve the ecological validity of risk analysis interpretations.The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 amends details of prevention strategies such as parenting contracts and ASBO administration. Inherent in the motivations contributing to the policy is the desire to appease public fear of juvenile offenders by re-establishing a notion of respect within British federation culture (Squires, 2008). Rooted in social inclusion discourse, th e act predominantly aims in part to improve the didacticsal and social bonds between the youth, parents and the schooling establishment. This is evident in the parenting contracts which require an insurance of a pip-squeaks attendance at school. According to the social development model (Catalano Hawkins, 1996), factors of poverty and poor facts of life jointly interact to promote the likelihood of delinquent behaviour. By ensuring agnate and childhood engagement with education, this link can be broken. Furthermore, parents may be required to attend parenting courses if their childs behaviour is not deemed to improve. The act states that local education authorities are able to engage with parents of children excluded from school in order to establish the contractual process. The Act similarly puts in place moguls for legal philosophy to disperse groups of more than two individuals in public spaces if they appear to be causing nuisance.There are problems inherent in these new powers allocated to the police. search has demonstrated that groups of youths are more readily perceived as hard than congregated groups of other age groups (Mille, Jacobson, McDonald, Hough, 2005). Furthermore, local agencies present conflict in how to can with individuals deemed to be engaging in anti-social practice. There appears to be a barrier in balancing neo-liberal and neo-conservative approaches and the party favored approach may vary regionally. Mille et al (2005) also demonstrated a discrepancy between national perceptions and local implementations of ASBO administration. A national consensus that there should be an emphasis on enforcement contrasts with the local implementation of social inclusion policies. While parenting courses have been deemed as successful in the short-term (Kazdin, 1997), concerns have been raised about the long-term efficacy and the salute durability of national implementation. It has also been demonstrated that the notion of responsibili ty has been centralised in governmental youth justice reform and that the rights of the parent and the child have not been sufficiently conceptualised to deal with this (Hollingsworth, 2007). The failure to do this has resulted in a social stigmatisation and criminalization of families with low socio-economic status (Goldson, 2002) which negates the craved effects of social inclusion. The overall result of the Act is the social penalisation and discrimination of young individuals and working class parents.The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 was also borne out of a desire to in effect manage youth crime issues in a manner that was economically efficient. The focus on crime prevention and intervention is borne out of this motivation for efficiency. It has been deemed that prevention of crime is more cost effective than punitive measures once the act has been committed (Winter, 2007). Furthermore, concepts of diagnosis, rehabilitation and reformation are considered too in dividualistic and are more efficiently managed by employing applications of resource management (Muncie, 1999). In order to improve efficiency, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 orders the referral of first time youth offenders to panels as opposed to serving a custodial sentence. The resource of the panel which is allocated to the youth offender is deemed to be an early solution to re-offending, ensuring that the individual does not become a habitual criminal. This will ensure that the individual requires less resources overall from the penal system.The practical outcome of the Youth Justice and Criminal Act 1999 is that the juvenile offender is referred to a panel upon the first offence if they plead guilty. The individual confers with the panel to upraise an action plan that the youth will adhere too. Action plans are aimed at improving the social circumstances of the child and negating risk factors. On the outset this appears positive. The offending individual is consulted and if able to work co-operatively, is theoretically able to engage in a rehabilitative process that will deter future offending behaviour. While this approach has deemed to initially appear as an effective measure, further research is required to fully determine the effectiveness of the approach (Anand, 1999). Muncie (1999) argues that the re-conceptualisation of rehabilitative issues into resource management rhetoric results in a depoliticised issue where youth justice problems are viewed as requiring efficient management as opposed to resolution. Therefore, while the alternative to custodial sentences may prove beneficial, it is important that the emphasis on rehabilitation is still prominent.It has been determined that youth justice policy is rooted in a conflicting ideological basis centred upon neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideals. This occurs against a backdrop of a social context of a mass cultural fear of the young individual. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 are borne out of political motivations to govern public services with economic efficiency. What results is a process that manages youth justice as a resource issue. Any focus upon individual needs and rehabilitative process is threatened. Actuarial concepts do favour preventative measures which can work to improve the circumstances of the individual. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 aims to improve social inclusion by re-conceptualising notions of social responsibility. However, the administration of parenting contacts and the power to move on groups of individuals, results in a criminalisation of young individuals and families of subvert socio-economic status.ReferencesAnand, S.S. (1999). Youth Crime What Works, What Doesnt, and What it Means for Canadian Criminal Justice Policy. queen Law Journal, 25,177-189.Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003.(c. 38) HMSO.Case, S. (2007). Questioning the Evidence of Risk that Under-pins Evidence Led Youth Justice Interventions. Youth Justice, 7(2),91-105.Catalano, R.F., Hawkins, J.D. (1996). Social Development Model A Theory of Antisocial Behaviour.Rockville, MD case Institute of Justice.Crime and Disorder Act 1998. (c. 37) HMSO.Farrington, D. (1997). Evaluating a Community Crime Prevention Programme. Evaluation, 3(2),157-173.Farrington, D. (2002). Understanding and preventing youth crime. In J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin, (Eds.). Youth Justice captious Readings.London sagacious Publications Ltd.Fergusson, R. (2007). Making sense of the Melting Pot Multiple Discourses in Youth Justice Policy. Youth Justice, 7(3),179-194.Gelsthorpe, L., Morris, A. (2002). Restorative youth justice The pull round vestiges of welfare? In J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin, (Eds.). Youth Justice small Readings.London sage-green Publications Ltd.Goldson, B. (2002). Youth Crime, the Parenting Deficit, and State Intervention A Contextual Critique. Youth Justice, 2(2),82-99.Goldson, B., Muncie, J. (2006) . Rethinking youth justice Comparative analysis, international human rights and research evidence. Youth Justice, 6(2),91-95.Hollingsworth, K. (2007). Responsibility and Rights Children and their Parents in the Youth Justice System. global Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 21(2),210-219.Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.(c. 23) HMSO.Kazdin, A. (1997). Parent Management Training Evidence, Outcomes, Issues. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(10),1349-1356.Kempf-Leonard, K., Peterson, E. (2000). Expanding the realms of the New Penology. Punishment Society, 2(1),66-97.Loeber,R., Farrington, D., Waschbusch, D. (1999). Serious and tearing Juvenile Offenders. In R. Loeber D. Farrington (Eds.) Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders Risk Factors and Succesful Interventions.London Sage Publications.Mille, A., Jacobson, J., McDonald, E., Hough, M. (2005). Anti-Social Behaviour Strategies Finding a Balance.Bristol Policy Press.Moss, K. (2001) . Crime Prevention v Planning Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Is it a Material Consideration? Crime Prevention and Community Safety An International Journal, 3,43-48.Muncie, J. (1999). Institutionalized Intolerance Youth Justice and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. Critical Social Policy, 19(2),147-175.Muncie, J. (2006). Governing young people Coherence and contradiction in contemporary youth justice. Critical Social Policy, 26(4),770-793.Muncie, J., Hughes, G. (2002). Modes of governance Political rationalities, criminalisation and resistance. In J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin, (Eds.). Youth Justice Critical Readings.London Sage Publications Ltd.Newburn, T. (2002). The contemporary governing of youth crime prevention. ? In J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin, (Eds.). Youth Justice Critical Readings.London Sage Publications Ltd.Sanders, B. (2005). Youth Crime and Youth Culture in the Inner City.London Routledge.Scanlan, D. (1998). The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 A Guide for Practit ioners.London Callow Publishing.Scraton, P., Haydon, D. (2002). Challenging the criminalisation of children and young people securing a rights based agenda. In J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin, (Eds.). Youth Justice Critical Readings.London Sage Publications Ltd.Squires, P. (2008). ASBO Nation The Criminalisation of Nuisance.Bristol Policy Press.Winter, H. (2007). The Economics of Crime An Introduction to Rational Crime Analysis.London Routledge.