Youth Justice Sytem - Essay Example

1 THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM AND TWO SERVICES IT PROVIDES Youth crime is one problem that each nation must deal with head on. It cannot be dealt with, with a mere shrug or let that problem be swept under the rug because crimes committed by youths have long-standing repercussions. Each report of youth crime sends shock waves to each society as nations, parents, the church begin to question whether the moral values they are imparting to their citizens especially the children are defective or insufficient. Consciences are pricked whenever today's youths show increasing propensity for violence and criminal behaviour. Surely the aberrant youths cannot be prosecuted the same way as adults as there is a different degree of criminality. The young criminal is always considered as a troubled youth whose parents, the church, the state and its institutions must partake of the blame. He is deemed as a victim of circumstances, of the weakening and destruction of the family and the family values, of fads such as drug use, cults, gangs and even heavy metal music as well as a product of violence in the newspapers, TV and the cinema. On the other hand, youth crimes cannot just be handled with kid gloves or reacted to by a mere slap of the wrist as these are potent symptoms of the debilitation of the moral fabric of society and thus, the weakening of the bonds that hold tight the dam that preserves society. Surely, if youthful criminals are detained for a while and released prematurely to society, they will be back to wreak more and deadlier havoc. At first, most societies dealt with youth crime control by subscribing to the environmental theory of crime which believes that youthful crimes are caused by external and environmental factors that are mostly beyond the control of the youthful offender. When this proved to be a failure, most societies shifted to the classical theory of crime which holds that the individual's crime is a result of his exercise of his free will and thus he must be deterred from commission 2 of crimes by severe punishment (Olivo et al 52). Today, UK has decided to meet halfway and has come up with a legislation called Youth Criminal Justice Act 2003, which holds that the youthful offender must be punished but he must undergo rehabilitation, pre-emptive intervention, education and a host of other services like the concept of restorative justice offered by the Youth Justice System (Stephenson xvii). The above was triggered by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of which UK is a signatory. In 1990, UK has agreed to accede to the UN provision respecting "special protection measures covering the rights of children in the juvenile justice system" and the provision granting to each child offender the right to "family environment and family care" as well as the "right not to be subjected to torture" (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). The UN Riyadh Guidelines 1990 also provided for early intervention which is a shared responsibility between state and the parents. Concomitant to the provisions of the Youth Justice System was the establishment of Youth Justice Board (YJB) by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Its role is to oversee and provide leadership for the improvement of the performance of the youth justice system (Smith 83). Its main responsibility is to prevent the commission of offenses by young persons (Ghate 1). Other responsibilities are the securing of facilities for the juvenile offenders, the development of models of restorative justice and the development of parenting programmes (Smith 86). The Act declared that its main objective is the reinforcement of the responsibilities of parents to exercise control over their offsprings. Pre-emptive Intervention (Parenting) The parenting programmes's main task is to reinforce the responsibility of parents so as to prevent the commission of crime by their juvenile delinquent offsprings. Its underlying 3 principle and its source of strength is the belief that parents could influence their children's behaviour for better or worse (Ghate 1) and that a bad parental supervision is tantamount to youth criminality. For this, the YJB has deployed YOTs (Youth Offending Teams) to aid and support the parents of children who have the tendency and propensity of becoming offenders so that they can ameliorate their parenting skills and thus effectively practice their parental responsibilities (Smith 86). To give teeth to the programme, a Parenting Order, which is a civil penalty given to parents of juvenile delinquents and school refusers, is designed to pressure the parents to conform to the programme. Thus YOTs can force parents to regularly attend their children's court sessions and police interviews as well as compel their children to attend school. This novel approach is believed to be a strong deterrent to the commission of crime by the youths and thus instead of reforming and rehabilitating them, the resources of the state are deployed for the mitigation of their anti-social behaviour (Goldson 93). This programme offers 6 services i.e. opportunities for reparation, moral development, cognitive therapies, treatment for substance dependence, special education and improved parenting skills (Goldson 80). The YJB is also keenly aware that the programme cannot soar with flying colours without solid theoretical frameworks and basic needs that must be immediately addressed. First and foremost of the needs is funding. For this, the Development Fund was quickly set up. Also, the Trust for the Study of Adolescence was also granted to the YOTs in their role as advisers, providers of resources and grantors of parenting services. Another key element is the employment of high-quality YOT staff, who must be well-versed in "social work, counselling, psychotherapy, youth justice work, child protection, family therapy and teaching (Ghate 76). Then comes the support to parental needs i.e. social needs and needs related to parenting per se. 4 Since the procedures for enforcement of the Parenting Order are vague, complex and proven to be unproductive, such demands amendment (Ghate 76). Also basic to YJB is an effective method of risk assessment. To this YJB has applied "ASSET as the primary assessment and decision-making tool for all young people identified as offenders, at whatever stage in the justice system" (Goldson 97) and also ONSET where children may be deemed to be at risk of criminal involvement at the pre-offending stage. Another important system is one for promotion of early preventive intervention. This includes the identification and conscription of youths who are targeted as at risk as well as the spelling out of the coercive aspects of the programme. The ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) are also fundamental. These are "civil orders designed to deter anti-social behaviour and preclude the escalation of such behaviour without having to resort to criminal sanctions (Campbell 2). Then finally there must be Pre-Court Disposals which are comprised of reprimands and final warnings. One important thing that came out from the programme is the creation of a National Academy for Parenting Professionals. It is designed to serve as a "national centre and source of advice on high-quality research evidence on parenting and parenting support" (Social Exclusion Task Force 49). The parenting programme is also a boon because of the positive impact on the parents. Changes had been widely chronicled about their parental skills as well as the parent-child relationships. Some important transformations are better communication between parents and their problem-children. Also noticed is greater parental warmth and lessening of hostility between them; better parental supervision and tighter monitoring of their young wards; more confidence on the part of parents to resolve and to cope with problems involving their offsprings; and better handling and resolution of conflicts. 5 The programme however has potential pitfalls foremost of these is the complexity and vagueness of Parenting Order procedures which may potentially cause problems such as hesitancy on YOT actions and failure to follow up the programmes. Others are too much focus on parenting procedures that reform and rehabilitation of offenders is pushed to the background; the "zombification of youth justice" (Pitts) and too much net widening of social control (Gelsthorpe 31). Restorative Justice Restorative justice is defined by Tony Marshall as a "process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future" (Braithwaite 11). This is a relatively new approach which function is to force the offender to be made aware of the social and personal impact of his crime and to take action to abate the damage that he has done to the victim (Rutter 359). There are 4 outcomes hoped for in it i.e. reconciliation preceded by oral or written apology; atoning or making amends which may involve pain, financial loss or deprivation; relational justice to heal relationships and integrative shaming (Rutter 358). There are also 3 elements on which restorative justice is based i.e. reformed cautioning system, action plan orders and reparation orders. An action plan order is a "short, intensive programme of community intervention" whose aims are to punish, to rehabilitate and to make reparations. Its objectives are to alter the youthful offender's destructive behaviour and to prevent him from committing more crimes. The reparation order forces the juvenile offender to make reparation to his victim or to the community at large (Crawford & Newburn 17, 18). 6 Restorative justice could therefore be encapsulated into 3 principles i.e. restoration or atonement; reintegration or the offender paying his debts and reintegrating back to society; and responsibility where the offender and his parents face the consequences and take full responsibility to deter any more commission of offense (Home Office 1997d: par. 9.21). To ensure success for the programme, the YJB has designed 4 key models of restorative justice. The Unified model stands on the tenet that the restorative system is the sole option and is brought about by the transmogrification of criminal justice to restorative system. The Dual Track model embodies both criminal justice and restorative systems, which are independent from each other yet operate side-by-side and cooperate with each other if situation necessitates. The Safety Net model leans toward the Unified model but will readily have recourse to the criminal justice system as a safety net when the restorative system fails to give solution to the problem. The Hybrid model has values that belong to both restorative and criminal justice systems but the restorative part is limited only to the sanctioning phase (Weitekamp 16,17). Despite several theoretical frameworks, restorative justice works well because the former give it versatility as the model that works best for the situation is being utilised. It also has "been informed by indigenous and customary responses to crime, both those of the past and those used today" (Morris 4). The strength of restorative justice lies in the fact that it is widely found to reduce recidivism and increase the possibility of restitution being attained. Moreover, it is advantageous and beneficial to the victims, who have become active participants in the process. Likewise, since its goal is to heal relationships without subverting justice and because it involves the community, it is attractive to everybody and is especially advantageous to society and the state. If there are strengths, there are also weaknesses and pitfalls. Restorative justice has been 7 found to be very limited in responding to domestic violence because women will always be scared of "the fear of retaliation and threats to their well-being". Thus, it is powerless in issues of family violence (Strang). Another pitfall is that not all in the community "share the same cultural values" as well as the participating persona's credibility may be questionable. One more thing, it is very vulnerable to political pressures and interventions (Galaway 186). If these things occur, then the whole system may fall down. For whatever its worth, and despite all objections to the systems presented here, it is still best for criminal justice that it be given time to succeed. 7 REFERENCES Braithwaite, John. Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press, 2002. Campbell, Siobhan. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Home Office, Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 2002. Crawford, Adam & Newburn, Tim. Youth Offending and Restorative Justice. William Publishing, 2003. Galaway, Burt & Hudson, Joe. Restorative Justice. Criminal Justice Press, 1996. Gelsthorpe, Loraine & Padfield, Nicola. Exercising Discretion: Decision Making In The Criminal Justice System. Willan Publishing, 2003. Ghate, Deborah & Ramella, Marcelo. Positive Parenting. Policy Justice Bureau for The Youth Justice Board. September, 2002. Goldson, Barry & Muncie, John. Youth, Crime and Justice. SAGE, 2006. Morris, Allison & Maxwell, Gabrielle. Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Hart Publishing, 2001. Olivo, Laurence & Cotter, Ralph & Bronwich, Rebecca. Youth and the Law. Emond Montgomery Publications, 2006. Pitts, John. Korrectional Karaoke. Youth Justice, vol. 1, no. 2 (2001). Rutter, Michael & Giller, Henri & Hagell, Ann. Antisocial Behaviour by Young People. Cambridge University Press, 1998. Smith, Roger. Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy, Practice. Wilan Publishing, 2003. Social Exclusion Task Force. Reaching Out. Chapter 4, section III: p.49. Stephenson, Martin & Giller, Henri & Brown, Sally. Effective Practice in Youth Justice. Willan Publishing, 2003. 8 Strang, Heather & Braithwaite, John. Restorative Justice and Family Violence. Cambridge University Press, 2002. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/uncrc. Weitekamp, Elmar & Kerner, Hans-Jurgen. Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations. Willan Publishing, 2002. Read More