Anti Social Behavior - Case Study Example

Anti Social behavior One of the most significant steps taken by Government to control anti social behavior is the introduction of the Anti Social behavior Act of 2003. Prior to this, in its White Paper titled “respect and Responsibility: Taking a stand against anti social behavior” (www. Archive2.official-documents.co.uk), Home Secretary David Plunkett emphasized that there was a need for a tough approach to anti social behavior, so that when people break the rules, there are consequences which are “swift, proportionate” and which will “change the pattern of their behavior.(Cm 5778 at Foreword). This Paper also points out that anti social behavior means different things to different people; however it is generally viewed as behavior that is a forerunner to criminal acts. This White Paper laid out four general principles that must be ensured in tackling anti social behavior: (a) ensuring that everyone takes responsibility for their actions and does not behave in a manner that harasses others (b) the community sets out the standards of behavior (c) those who violate those standards are held accountable to those on whom they have perpetrated the anti social behavior and (d) intervention and support is provided for children exhibiting dysfunctional behavior through their parents. (Cm 5778 at pp 7). This Paper also mentions some of the legal means that have been employed to fight anti social behavior. One of these is the Crime and Disorder Reduction partnerships, which ensure that citizens and local services coordinate and work together to protect the community. Another is Fixed Penalty Notices, which were introduced in 2001 and require payment of penalties for disorder offences, failing which the offender may be guilty of a criminal offence and required to appear in a Magistrate’s Court. These Fixed Penalty notices are issued under Section 1-11 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act of 2001 and consist of fines from 50 pounds for lower tier offences and 80 pounds for higher tier offences, where being dunk, behaving in a disorderly or threatening manner, using threatening language as well as selling alcohol to a minor may all constitute offences. Neighborhood warden schemes have resulted in effective community policing of neighborhoods and reduced the incidence of disorder offences. The Protection against Harassment Act of 1977 provides protection against any kind of harassing behavior in general, making it an offence, especially if such behavior causes alarm, pain or distress to the person against whom it is manifested. The Public Order Act of 1986 includes provision against harassment under Sections 4A and 5, making a person guilty of an offence if he or she displays “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior” towards another with the intention to cause alarm or distress (www.webtribe.net). The Anti Social behavior Act of 2003 specifically addresses truancy, spray painting and graffiti, public drunkenness, fireworks and all kinds of gang activity (www.england-legislation.hmso.uk.gov). Part I of the Act gives the police powers to serve closure notices on places used for the production, supply or use of Class A drugs. Part II of the Act strengthens the power of social landlords to take action against tenants who annoy their neighbors and make sit easier to evict them. It also provides the power to the landlords to apply to the Courts for injunctions against persons who are engaging in anti social behavior. Part III amends parenting orders and specifies steps parents must take to control their children. Part IV gives the police powers to disperse a group whose presence or activities are likely to cause harassment or distress to the public. Part V makes it an offence to be in possession of an airgun, Part VI allows for graffiti removal notices and Part VII refines the provisions of the Public order Act of 1986, which allowed the police to intervene if public assemblies of more than 20 people were causing a disturbance, so that the police can now intervene when as little as two people are involved (www.england-legislation.hmso.uk.gov). This Act allows for the issue of an Anti Social behavior Order, which prevents the offending person from engaging in certain types of behavior or going to certain places, and the breach of such an order will amount to a criminal offence which can result in the violating person being imprisoned for a period of up to five years (www.bbc.co.uk). Recently, guidelines to the Anti Social behavior Contracts have also been introduced. These are voluntary written agreements between the individual/s involved in anti social behavior and the police and/or local services who are responsible for the prevention of such behavior (ABC 2007). These agreements include an acknowledgement by the individual/s concerned that their behavior is producing a negative effect on the community and an agreement from them to stop such behavior. The goal of these contracts is to ensure that individuals recognize the impact of their behavior and the need to take responsibility for such actions. (ABC, 2007: 4). Apart from a voluntary agreement to stop such behavior, these agreements can include additional provisions, such as a commitment from the individual to engage in positive activities to prevent recurrence of anti-social behavior. Such activities may include attending school or college or getting treatment for alcohol or drug abuse. Anti Social Behavioral contracts are found useful in putting a stop to low levels of anti social behavior; however as the guidelines emphasize, there is a need to also provide appropriate levels of support when it is used with individuals under 18, in order to bring about long term changes in behavior.(ABC, 2007:2). There is a need to involve parents in the process, especially when the child is under the age of ten, in which case local authorities may enter into contracts with the parents and apply for a parenting order under the amendments to the Anti Social behavior Act of 2003. Strengths of the anti social behavior legislation: In a study that was commissioned in 1999 to report upon the impact of Acceptable Behavior Contracts issued in the borough of Islington, the finding was that such contracts can bring about perceptible reductions in anti social behavior by young people while on contract (Bullock and Jones, 2004). Anti Social Behavior Orders issued under the Act of 2003 may be an effective means of controlling disorderly and inconsiderate behavior, because it allows the police to intervene in incidents or acts that previously did not merit legal action. The provisions in the law were too weak and/or ineffective to tackle anti-social behavior. However the various legal provisions that have been introduced above have spelt out codes of behavior that extend to a wide range of situations and including acts such as graffiti, drunkenness, disturbance and harassment. As a result, they may bring about an improvement in day to day living, by providing teeth in the law to tackle those issues which do not amount to criminal behavior, yet require some degree of control to be exerted. Those individuals to whom fines and/or behavior orders are issued are put on notice that a failure to comply with the terms of such orders or pay such fines could result in criminal action being pursued against them and thereby serves as a deterrent to disorderly behavior. The power that has been provided to landlords and citizen groups is particularly significant, because it enables a more effective protection of neighborhoods. This is one of the greatest strengths of the Anti Social behavior Act of 2003, because it enables the problem to be tackled from multiple levels and allows local organizations, police and the community to coordinate more effectively in policing their neighborhoods. The provision for seeking court injunctions or the power to evict unruly tenants is especially useful in public housing, where people are often too poor to move elsewhere and are forced to bear the disruptive acts of unruly tenants and acts of vandalism are legitimized by the general poverty of certain neighborhoods (Brown, 1999). The legal provisions as mentioned earlier will therefore be particularly helpful in ensuring that their rights are protected. The inclusion of parental orders and contracts also ensures that parents are not allowed to ignore the disorderly behavior of their children below 10 years of age, which social behavior contracts ensure that young adults are made responsible and accountable for any and all actions that cause harm to the community. Weaknesses of the anti social behavior legislation: One of the major defects of Anti Social behavior Orders may be the criminalization of a generation of young people, without according them respect as well.(Thomson, 2006). There is a growing conviction that such legislation is serving to increase criminal behavior rather than providing an amelioration of the problems, because it is perceived as unfairly targeting young people. According to feedback on the basis of research conducted by Thomson (2006) among young people on an estate in Hackney, existing legislation is seen to favor the adults on the estate who did not show any respect for youth in return, which only exacerbated the situation. The Anti Social behavior Act may thus be restricting the civil liberties of young people in particular. The Act may also be imposing measures that are too harsh for young people and inappropriate penalties may be imposed upon young people, with harsh provisions for breaching such penalties or behavior orders.(Burney 84). Moreover, the efficacy of such legislative provisions must also be questioned. For example Brown (1999) has pointed out that despite the introduction of the 1996 Housing Act which also included anti social behavior within the scope of housing legislation, it ha snot resulted in an increase in police intervention on council housing estates, largely because to some degree criminal activities are legitimized by the general poverty prevailing in such estates. As a result, in some instances, enforcing legislation may merely result in criminal behavior moving to another location rather than disappearing altogether (www.bbc.co.uk). The legislative measures do not address the underlying causes of such behavior and may therefore prove to be counter productive. This is the case with the Act Social behavior Act which may in effect be increasing criminal behavior as young adults feel more marginalized and pressured by the lack of respect for their rights and a too-harsh enforcement of legal provisions against them by adults. The focus of legislative measures should be upon changing behavior, i.e, getting to the roots of the problem which is the need for respect that young people experience, rather than merely tackling the outward manifestation of the problem through unsocial behavior. Moreover, as pointed out in a pilot study that was undertaken on the effectiveness of issue of penalties and fines, PNDs may sometimes result in an unfair burden on parents, because when the young people are unable to pay the fines, it is often the parents who are forced to take on the debt.(www.homeoffice.gov.uk). The burden of anti social behavior therefore falls upon third parties who may not be involved in the offending behavior at all. In the case of children younger than 10 or young adults who are unable to pay fines, the parents may often have to take on the financial debt in order to protect their children from criminal action. Since it is the parent rather than the child who bears the consequences of the act of public disorder, it may not prove to be effective as a deterrent for the youngster in question. Where the families are very poor, such penalties may not get paid at all which further results in the imposition of a harsh criminal penalty on a youngster which may not be proportionate with the nature of the offense. In some instances, fines may also go unpaid, or be issued repeatedly on the same persons, producing problems in terms of execution in actual practice. In conclusion therefore, while the anti social behavior legislation may have some efficacy, it may also be skirting the actual problem rather than dealing with it through an approach focused more upon the rehabilitation of young people who exhibit anti social behavior. There appears to be a need to include more rehabilitative provisions within the scope of legislation in order to deal effectively with the problem of anti social behavior. References: * Acceptable Behavior Contracts and Agreements, 2007. Retrieved November 24, 2007 from: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour/ antisocialbehaviour058a.pdf * Anti Social behavior Act of 2003. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from: http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030038.htm * Brown, P., 1999. “Redefining acceptable conduct: using social landlords to control behaviour”, Local Government Studies, 25(1):75-83. * Bullock, K. and Jones, B. ( 2004) “Acceptable Behaviour Contracts addressing antisocial behaviour in the London Borough of Islington”. London: Home Office. * Burney, E., 2005. “Making People Behave: Anti Social Behavior, Politics and Policy”, Willan Publishing * BBC Action Network team, 2004. “How can the Anti Social behavior Act help you? Retrieved November 23, 2005 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A2283824 * Piloting ‘on the spot penalties’ for disorder: final results from a one year pilot” Retrieved November 23, 2004 from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/r257.pdf * Public Order Act, Sections 4 A and 5 [online] available at: http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Public%20Order%20Act%201986%20(1986%20c%2064)%20Sect%204A,%205,%206.htm * “Q&A: Anti social behavior” BBC, 26 marc 2004. retrieved November 23, 2007 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3565619.stm * “Respect and Responsibility: Taking a stand against anti social behavior”, Cm 5778, Retrieved November 23, 2007 from: http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm57/5778/5778.pdf * Thomson, Louisa, 2006. “ASBO’s are criminalizing a generation of young people. They need ways of getting respect as well.” Progress Online, October 13, 2006. Retrieved November 24, 2007 from: http://progressonline.org.uk/Magazine/article.asp?a=1430 Read More