A Critical Analysis of New Labours Youth Justice Policies from 1996-2009 - Case Study Example

 A Critical Analysis of New Labour’s Youth Justice Policies from 1996-2009 The recent riots in London have exposed a simmering plethora of complex social and structural problems in this cosmopolitan city. The savage looting of establishments, the injuries caused to innocent civilians and the wanton destruction of property by masked thugs must be condemned, and their perpetrators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but the question remains: how does one address the deeper issues that have created the conditions for this crisis? In a strongly-worded speech, Prime Minister David Cameron bore down heavily on youth gangs and promised a criminal justice system that will clamp down heavily on them. He said, “We need a criminal justice system that scores a heavy line between right and wrong. In short, all the action necessary to help mend our broken society. At the heart of all the violence sits the issue of the street gangs. Territorial, hierarchical and incredibly violent, they are composed of young boys, mainly from dysfunctional homes.” (Cameron, 2011). What has been left unsaid in Cameron’s speech is that a retributive youth justice system has already been in place as a result on New Labour Policies from 1996-2009. In truth, the London riots invite us to look into the effectivity of these policies and interrogate why this youth justice system has not abated the problems and conditions that gave rise to the 2011 conflagrations. The riots may have exposed the gaps into the current youth justice system, and demand a rethinking of the premises and paradigms that underlie current criminal justice policies. Indeed, the riots may be said to be a clear and in-your-face rebuff of the “Respect Agenda” which tackled anti-social behaviour and clamped down on street crime because purportedly “the values the majority hold dear are not shared by a selfish minority.”(Respect Action Plan: 3) It is therefore an opportune time to look back at the Youth Justice policies of the New Labour and determine whether or not these policies remain responsive to the times that we are in. This paper will begin by giving a brief overview of the Youth Justice system over the period of 1996-2009. It will then give a critical analysis of this system, in order to determine its strengths and limitations and ultimately make a judgement as to whether or not it remains effective and viable. There are indeed some beneficial components of the new policies on Youth Justice. For one, it is very specific and identifies the problem areas to be addressed. The document on ati-social behaviour for example, identifies a social malaise that requires responses. Also, the policies have the objective of restoring order and discipline – indeed, noteworthy aspirations. Moreover, an added improvement in the new policy is its victim-centered approach. The involvement of the victim is an integral aspect of the new policy. Rather than making the victim remain anonymous, the policy now permits the victim to take an active part in the process. In fact, the statistics show that the victims had expressed a feeling that justice had been served. (Sherman and Tang, 2007.) But weighing the strengths vis a vis the limitations, the broad consensus appears to be that the latter has overtaken the former. Three issues will be pinpointed in the critical assessment of Youth Justice policies. The first argument is that the Youth Justice policy is overly-retributive and anti-child, ignoring the inherent vulnerabilities of children and treating them as hardened offenders, giving rise to disturbing social consequences. The second argument is that it is biased against minority groups and economically-disadvantaged sectors, further drawing racial boundaries instead of encouraging inclusion and integration. The third argument looks at the Youth Justice policy in the context of human rights and procedural due process. Since 1997, the New Labour introduced a panoply of new youth justice mechanisms designed to reflect the government’s tough new attitude against crime and disorder. The main objectives of the new policy were to reduce the number of first time entrants, to reduce re-offending, to reduce the amount of time between the arrest of an individual and his sentencing date, and to reduce the number of children in custody. (Solomon and Garside, 2008 : 39). Goldson, in his article “Youth Policy: Bullying The New Labour Way” (2005) summarized the components of the new youth justice policy in this excerpt: The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 served to completely restructure the youth justice apparatus. It also introduced a range of new, often repressive powers and sentencing disposals. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 introduced a new interventionist sentence, the referral order, for almost all children and young people appearing in court on first conviction, effectively making it a mandatory sentence. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 increased the courts' powers to penalise the parents of children who do not attend school regularly. The Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 made provision for the electronic monitoring and surveillance of children. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 extended the application of child curfew schemes, the powers of the courts to send children to prison and other locked institutions on remand, and it further applied the electronic surveillance of young people. The Police Reform Act 2002 introduced interim Anti-Social Behaviour Orders that can be imposed prior to a full court hearing. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 was implemented following the publication of a White Paper entitled Respect and Responsibility: Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour. The reforms being implemented in the Youth Justice Policy were lauded as important reforms that signpost a transition to a more orderly and disciplined society, a society where the interests of the majority are adequately protected. And yet, many quarters had raised issues against it, issues that are likely to surface once more in light of the unfortunate events that have befallen London. This paper will identify three. Firstly, the reforms that have been implemented appear to be more focused on retribution and public order, and have forgotten that criminal justice – particularly criminal justice involving children – need to have a restorative and rehabilitative component as well. In very strong words, Hogg (1999) called the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 “the latest step to enforce social cohesion by coercion.” In similar vein, Walsh, (1999:138) stated that “the Government’s youth justice policy is more concerned with maintaining order within the community than with the welfare of the child.” This is manifest in, for example, an overreliance in penal detention as a way of imposing discipline or meting out penalties. According to Goldson (2005), “(t)he total number of custodial sentences imposed upon children rose from approximately 4,000 per annum in 1992 to 7,600 in 2001, a 90 percent increase. During the same period the child remand population grew by 142 percent. In March 2004 alone there were 3,251 children (10 to 17 years) in penal custody in England and Wales.” This is unfortunate, because in fact, what youth justice systems should aspire towards is a reduction in the number of incarcerations, and an exploration of alternative ways to execute justice while still concerned with the rehabilitation, formation and well-being of the child. Another indication of the shift from rehabilitation to retribution is the removal of the rebuttable presumption of “doli incapax”, which essentially is a layer of protection for children that requires the party charging a youth with the commission of a crime to prove that the child was capacitated. According to the Family Policy Studies Centre, “our modern society has not reached a particularly high degree of sophistication if it regards a criminal conviction as an appropriate way of illustrating the consequences of doing wrong to a child as young as ten.” (1998: 61) The over-all effect that this has is the creation of a punitive culture that will only result in children becoming even more hardened and even more embittered. Instead of providing a nurturing atmosphere so child offenders can learn and change their behaviour and integrate once more into society, they are treated as outcasts and are made to feel marginalized, thus heightening alienation from authority figures. This is helpful nether for the child nor for the society that these policies purport to protect. Secondly, these Youth Justice policies ignore class, gender and racial fault lines. The proponents of the policy already knew that class and access to wealth and opportunity are implicated in the issues concerning youth crimes. In the Respect Action Plan, it was clearly stated that: Anti-social behavior, which is the most visible sign of disrespect, is a major social justice issue. One in three people living on a low income, in social housing or in inner cities perceive their area as suffering from high levels of anti-social behaviour. (5). Many of those who live in these enclaves are non-white minorities, often of African descent. Statistics demonstrate that “black boys are 6.7 times more likely than their white counterparts to have custodial sentences in excess of 12 months imposed upon them in the crown court, and black child prisoners are more likely than white detainees to encounter additional adversity within custodial institutions owing to racist practices.” (Goldson, 2005). This racism in the implementation of youth justices policies only exacerbate the tensions and create in the youth being incarcerated a growing sense of resentment and social isolation. Also, the trend to expand the coverage of young people who come under the criminal justice system – to widen the net, if you will – has inordinately affected girl children, and more appallingly, in some cases they are detained alongside adult offenders. (ibid.) This create complex psychological problems and stresses on the girl child. Finally, an important issue that needs to be raised is the issue of procedural due process and human rights. For example, the government has set out to “preempt” crime by undertaking preemptive interventions. However, a consequence of that is that it brings to fore serious procedural due process, in particular presumption of innocence issues. As Goldson describes it, “It follows that the new modes of risk classification and pre-emptive intervention are unencumbered by such legal principles as 'the burden of proof', 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'due legal process'. Instead intervention is triggered by assessment, discretion and the spurious logic of prediction and probability.” (ibid.) What this will result in – indeed, what it has resulted in – is profiling on the basis of preconceived notions and biases, thus allowing racist impulses to influence the application and enforcement of criminal justice. This is already manifest in the responses to the London riots, with early speculation being that the rioters were black young people, when in fact a good number of them were white, middle class Britons. There is also concern that the policy allowing the Police to give reprimands and warnings would in effect make the police take on the role of “investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury”, for which they are completely untrained. In fact, to quote Bell (1999: 202) “the police are particularly poor judges of the quality of their own evidence.” It is feared that this has only resulted in, not only an ineffective mechanism to control crime, but also an ineffective mechanism to gently guide the child offender towards his or her rehabilitation. It will also create fear of authority that will only lead to more unhealthy behaviour in the futre. In sum, there is much to be desired in the current youth justice policies of the New Labour. Considering that the Independent Audit has found that “the extra money for relentless reform has not resulted in a significant improvement in outcomes, with crime and victimization levels remaining high and the proportion of crimes dealt with being extremely low” (Solomon, et. al., 13) it is high time to rethink the policies if they are still serving the needs of the British population, most especially the children who are in the most vulnerable position and need a proper enabling environment with which they can reintegrate and thrive again. Given however, the recent unfortunate events in London, the answer appears to be in the negative. Works Cited Bell, C. (1999) “Appealing for Justice for Children and Young People: A Critical Analysis of the Crime and Disorder Bill 1998”, in Goldson, B. (Ed.) Youth Justice: Contemporary Policy and Practice. Aldershot, Ashgate. Cavadino, P. (1997a) Government Plans for Youth Justice. Childright. 141. 4–5. Family Policy Studies Centre (1998) The Crime and Disorder Bill and the Family. London, Family Policy Studies Centre. Goldson, B. (Ed.) (2000c) The New Youth Justice. Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishing. Goldson, B. (2005). “Youth Policy: Bullying the New Labour Way”. Socialist Review. Available at http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9543. Hogg, J. G. (1999) Crime and Disorder Act: First Crack in the Threshold. Family Law. Aug. 574–7. Respect Action Plan. (2008). Give Respect, Get Respect. London: Respect Task Force. Sherman, L. W. and Strang, H. (2007) Restorative Justice: The Evidence, Smith Institute: London available online: www.smith-institute.org.uk/publication.htm (Accessed on 11 August 2011) Solomon, E. and Garside, R. (2008). Ten Years of Labour’s Youth Justice Reforms: An Independent Audit. London: Center for Crime and Justice Studies. Walsh, C. (1999) “Imposing Order: Child Safety Orders and Local Child Curfew Schemes.” Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 21: 2. 135–49. Read More