Juvenile Offenders and Re-offending Rates - Literature review Example

There have been global trends in treatment of juvenile offenders. Until the 1970’s, juvenile offenders were punished for their crimes, but it was recognized that their age was to be considered. The 1980’s then witnessed a rise in punishment approach to juvenile offenders.4 Since 2000, risk factors have been used to determine which communities have a higher probability of producing juvenile offenders.5 These communities are then encouraged through central policymaking to eliminate these factors.

6 However, recent approach implies elimination of crime rates and strict punishment of the committed crimes.7 It does not apply rehabilitation or concern with re – offending rates. Such system, inspired by the American system of policing, punishing and shaming juvenile offenders has been applied in the UK ever since the 1990’s.8 Globalization has been blamed for such a development. According to the critics, globalization has promoted neo – liberalism and individual responsibility, which results in blaming the juvenile offender.

9 As a result, juvenile incarceration rates are high in the UK relative to other countries. . Scotland in Europe.12 One reason is lower age of criminal responsibility, which leads to more juveniles being prosecuted and awarded custodial sentence.13 There is a disconnection between the central government and local agents. In the UK, non – custodial sentence is preferred and promoted by the policymakers.14 Social Enquiry Reports (SER), which are written by social workers and stand at disposal to judges and sheriffs, promote the prescribed policy.

However, the judges mostly misinterpret the recommendations, or decide to disregard them.15 The government on one hand aims to punish the crimes, but on the other hand prevent them. As a result, such action might also be misinterpreted by some judges. Local communities also affect the implementation of central government’s decisions. In South – West of the UK, one in ten sentences is custodial sentence, whereas in West Midlands one in five community sentences are custodial sentences.16 Such an approach by judges and communities changes the impact of governmental policies and decisions.

17 As a result, England and Wales experienced decreasing rates of juvenile re – offending, even though these decreases are slight. According to the Ministry of Justice report from 2010, Between April 2009 and March 2010, there were approximately 110,000 juvenile offenders. 18 Less than 38,000 of them were re – offenders. Thus, the re – offending rate was 33.3 per cent, and the average number of re – offences for these individuals was 2.79. 19 There was a 0.4 percentage point decrease in re – offending rate of juveniles since 2000, though risk assessment of the juvenile offenders indicates high probability of re – offending.

20 In Australia, a mild system, re – offending rates are visibly lower for non – custodial