Evidence-Based Practice with Young Sexual Offenders - Coursework Example

Running Head: Evidence-based Practice with Young Sexual Offenders Evidence-based Practice with Young Sexual Offenders [Institute’s Name] Evidence-based Practice with Young Sexual Offenders A crime is any enactment or mistake resulting from neglect forbidden by law for the security and safeguard of the people and populace, and fixed as a penal offense by the country in a juridical proceeding in its own identity (Wolfgang & Johnston, pp. 23-25, 1962). It is a public wrongdoing and this differentiates it from a mere personal damage or civil wrong to any person. As pointed out by the above definition, crime pertains to evildoing against the populace order, and not merely against the ethical or personal orders. This throws light on the fact that for a crime, a mere intention is not enough, or even if there is a crime as well as an intention to it, it still does not fall under the category of crime if it hurts and offends someone in personal. (Danziger, pp. 34-37, 2002) Any wrongful act is a crime only when it is done with an intention as well as the act of wrongdoing affects the public. Such a definition was limited to only adult and grown-up members of the human society until few decades ago; however, a new term of juvenile or adolescent offenders came into being after a number of cases reported in which, youngsters below 18 years of age were involved in criminal activities, such as theft, burglary, rape, harassment, etc. In specific, when a juvenile in the age group of 13-17 commit any sexual offense, he/she is referred as adolescent sexual offender in the United Kingdom, and such is the case in a number of other countries around the globe. There can be innumerable reasons for sexual offenses flourishing in our society; however, experts have classified them into different broad umbrellas such as social circumstances, moral and ethical reasons, racial and lingual issue, environmental factors, religious differences, personality disorders, mental diseases, past experiences, family history and so on and so forth. (Bessant & Watts, pp. 33-41, 2007) Sometimes the reason is nothing but the personal choice of the criminal to adhere to sexual offenses. This paper deals with a thorough discussion of factors that are responsible for existence of such offensive activities in lives of youngsters. Crimes can be viewed as the result of adverse social circumstances. (Wolfgand & Johnston, pp. 56-63, 1962) Not every youngster chooses crime for his life’s long journey; however, sometimes, conditions are just too impossible to avoid for ordinary people, situations are inevitable to not to fall apart, not always the wrong doer is the criminal only, sometimes, it is the whole society to share the crime. Yes, crimes happen because of social circumstances. One of these theories is the Social Disorganization Theory (Wolfgand & Johnston, pp. 57-60, 1962) that relates to the incompetence and failure of different social foundations or social organizations in bringing a human out of people that become criminal afterwards in any society or community. Social institutions are supposed to instill social norms and moral values in a youngster, these moral values helps individuals in abstaining from criminal activities. (Langstrom, pp. 855-871, 2000) However, studies have shown that a majority of adolescent sexual offenders belong to societies affected by racism or aggression. Therefore, if a person is engaged in sexual offenses, it is equally a failure of the social organizations and institutions; he/she has been through. Additionally, it is observed that Youth Justice System in the United Kingdom is also responsible for occurrences of such sexual offenses in the country. It is noted that a huge percent of young sexual offenders has the history of having juvenile sentences against non-sexual offenses. In this regard, such sentences are resulting in contrary results of increment in rate of sexual offenses, rather than eliminating it from the society. (Caldwell, pp. 291-302, 2002) Although not every sexual offender comes from a harassed or abused family or social environment; however, a majority of such sexual offenders can be termed as homeless teenagers that perform such illegal offenses to get rid of ordeals and strains in their lives. A number of researchers have endeavored to create a relation between delinquency and victimization; however, on contrary, majority of adolescent sexual offenders were not sexually abused in their lives. In all these researches, one thing is common and that is all such offenders are neglected members of the family, as well as, society. It is noted that young children are sexually abused by teenagers in the age group of 12 to 15 years old. Unemployment is another imperative factor that results in sexual offenses by young individuals. (Pickford, pp. 79-85, 2000) Economic models in different studies have suggested that individuals tend to involve in criminal activities due to declining rate of job opportunities; however, such a relation has been limited to economically related crimes; however, a small percent of such individuals sexually abuse young teenagers in distress and nervous tension. Another imperative theory strengthening this stand is the structural strain theory, (Wolfgand & Johnston, pp. 62-67, 1962) as it explains that when the social rules and regulations are poorly distributed, many social problems arise, and out of these problems, crime tops the list. Structural strain theory describes the processes by which shortcomings at the social regulation end directly affects and adversely strike the individuals of a society to commit crimes. Gang criminal activities of young adolescents are increasing in our society with a gradual but constant rate. A number of researchers have thrown light on Gang Criminals regarding the juvenile delinquents as a social group with nothing much in common except one thing; they just commit such sexual crimes for fun, adventure, or excitement. (Goldsmith, Israel, & Daly, pp. 72-79, 2006) They do not have any common goal or objectives to do any gang criminal activity, they usually do not want any material advantage but they just do for the sake of doing it. Most of the youngsters involved in this category are young boys and girls who joined gangs for no specific reason, and afterwards, either they get addicted to it or become the victim themselves. In addition, if we see this situation with reference to Social Disorganization Theory, the social institutions have failed to invoke good in them, as they do not have any materialistic objectives to achieve, behind their criminal acts. (Goldsmith, Israel, & Daly, pp. 78-79, 2006) According to the UK government, (Home Office, 2008) forceful penalties for young offenders cannot be avoided, as it is necessary for a secure and healthy society; however, studies have observed that these rough and punitive punishments and custodies have resulted in opposing results, rather than allowing offenders to recuperate and break their offending cycle. Although steps are being taken to prevent young individuals from falling into this black hole; however, youth imprisonment presently seems to be the only option that is taken as effectual, regardless its adversities. (HM Government, 2008, pp. 58-61) Policymakers believe that innocent public stays protected by custody and imprisonment sentences to young sexual offenders; however, it is an agreeable fact that punishment confronted by young sexual offenders in prisons results in separation and isolation from the society that is adverse for children according to a number of child psychologists. (Delanty & Strydom, pp. 55-59, 2003) Studies (Muncie, pp. 63-68, 2004) have noted that children are unable to acquire proper guidance in custody and remand and end up with getting opinions from wrong people, such as serious criminals and offenders, which seems to be quite true with the fact that a majority of youth sexual offenders are convicted after two years of leaving the police custody. In the past, local services used to correspond with magistrates, and after confirming presence of specific youth sexual offender as inappropriate in community, that particular individual was given a custody or remand verdict. In this respect, community services used to tackle young sexual offenders by indulging them in community services that is an effective means of punishing youth offenders. (HM Government, pp. 59-72, 2008) However, such practice has become very rare due to lack of resources and support of community services, which has resulted in majority of young offenders getting custody or remand sentences, and thus, has increased the youth sexual crime rate in the United Kingdom. (Home Office, 2008) According to Criminal Justice System of the United Kingdom, protection of all members of its society is one of the most significant responsibilities of its controlled and fair system. (Muncie, pp. 30-33, 2004) However, it seems like the justice system has failed in fulfilling the mentioned social responsibility. In England and Wales alone, more than thirteen young individuals are sent in policy custody or prisons every year for sexual offenses. (Home Office, 2008) According to statistics for the year 2006, more than 1,200 young sexual offenders were ordered non-custodial sentences. In the United Kingdom, young sexual offenders below 21 years of age make up more than seven percent of custody population. (Home Office, 2008) Experts have noted that such population of youth in remand or custody has resulted in increment of homelessness, redundancy, lack of education, and a number of similar confrontations in the United Kingdom, and thus, government and policymakers should come up with an effective solution rather than incarcerating youth. (Ireland, pp. 69-77, 2005) ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is the appreciated standard practiced in a number of criminal justice systems around the globe. However, such practice seems to have mislaid in the United Kingdom Criminal Justice System, especially when it comes to tackling youth sexual offenders. (Muncie, pp. 39-42, 2004) Ineptitude of youth incarceration has been a widespread actuality, which can be understood by studying different real-life examples. As earlier mentioned, mainstream of young sexual offenders discharged from custody, remand, or offender institutes have been back again within two years. In other words, youth incarceration does not seem to be working at all. However, instead of planning any other effective option, new prison places are being announced by Home Office in the United Kingdom, as last year, announcement of more than 7000 prison places was published by Office of the Home Secretary, in order to deal with over-population of youth offenders. (Home Office, 2008) Some of the experts have observed that the Youth Justice Board is endeavoring to eradicate or lessen the causes of youth crime, specifically, sexual offenses by announcing new juvenile offending institutes and tough disciplinary sentences, which has not prevented, but promoted young offenders to become professional criminals or sexual abusers and harassers. (Omaji, pp. 62-65, 2003) Remands and custodies are playing a worsening role to damage the society, rather than protecting it from crimes. One of the significant reasons of such ineffectiveness of youth imprisonment is that it impedes the learning process provided by means of education, available in community-based centers. Moreover, family is the major factor that prevents individuals from offending sexual crimes again. Unfortunately, confinement wipes out any chances of family contact, which results in isolation and causes re-offending. In other words, young offenders confront stigmatization and become aliens, which can be prevented by giving them community-based punishments, rather than incarcerating them. Conclusively, the paper has discussed some of the significant aspects of evidence-based practice with young sexual offenders in the United Kingdom. It is hoped that the paper will be beneficial for students, teachers, and professionals in better understanding of the topic. References Bessant, J., Watts, R. (2007). Sociology Australia – Third Edition. Allen & Unwin. Caldwell, M. F. (2002). “What we do not know about juvenile sexual Re-offense Risk.” Child Maltreatment. Volume 7. Danziger, Sheldon. (2002). Understanding Poverty. Harvard University Press. Delanty, G. & Strydom, P. (2003). Philosophies of Social Science. Maidenhead: Routledge. Goldsmith, A., Israel, M., Daly, K. (2006). “Youth and Crime”. Crime and Justice: a Guide to Criminology. Sydney: Lawbook Co. HM Government. (2005). Reducing Re-offending through Skills and Development. London: Ministry of Justice Press. HM Government. (2008). Youth Crime Action Plan 2008. London: Ministry of Justice Press. Home Office. (2008). Youth Crime. Retrieved on April 26, 2009; http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/youth-crime. Ireland, Jane L. (2005). Bullying Among Prisoners. UK: Willan Publishing. Langstrom, N. (2000). “Risk for criminal recidivism among young sex offenders.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Volume 15. Muncie, John. (2004). Youth and Crime, Second Edition. London: Sage. Omaji, Paul. (2003). Responding to Youth Crime. London: Hawkins Press. Pickford, Jane. (2000). Youth Justice. UK: Routledge. Raphael, S. (2001). "Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime.” Journal of Law and Economics 44, 259-83. Wolfgang, Savitz, L. Johnston, N. (1962). The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Read More