Effectiveness of Current Legislation on Young Offenders - Research Paper Example

EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT LEGISLATION ON YOUNG OFFENDERS Introduction Globally, the number of children deprived of liberty as an outcome of conflict with law enforcement agencies is estimated to be over one million. Children may be arrested for committing an offence, for being found at risk of delinquency or in an irregular situation, because of arbitrary actions of law enforcement authorities or other reasons. The juvenile justice system consists of governmental laws, legislation, policies and guidelines, as well as customary norms, institutions, professionals, systems and treatment focused on children in conflict with the law (United Nations Office, 2007). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the effectiveness of current legislation dealing with young people who offend. The explanations for offending, and how legislation seeks to modify behaviour and protect the public will also be determined, towards evaluating current legislation’s effectiveness. Discussion Even though juvenile crime, in terms of arrests carried out, has continued to decline since the 1990s, the severely punitive legislation against youth offenders employed during that time, resulted in “adultification policies that increased the number of youth in criminal court and the number of youth incarcerated in adult prisons” (Benekos & Merlo, 2008: 30). Present day legislation is related to overcrowding in the current juvenile justice system and also change in public attitudes towards offenders, which is now unsure regarding the stance to be taken, though there is reluctance to abandon the punitive policies of the 1990s. According to Muncie (2004), changes in legislation and in the number of arrests and sentences do not indicate actual changes in the level of crime, but changes in the capacity of the criminal justice system to process individual cases. More police, more prisons, increased political will and resources to support law enforcement, have an infinite ability to increase the amount of recorded crime of certain kinds, from the unlimited well of unrecorded crime to be tapped. The greatest impact of increased surveillance is on youth, since their crimes are generally more visible: in the street, shopping mall or football ground, as compared to adult crimes such as embezzlement, state atrocities, pilfering at workplaces, domestic violence, etc. New legislation remains capable of criminalizing greater sections of the population. Since 1991, New Labour has created 661 new criminal offences and has launched hundreds of anti-crime initiatives. Many of these address non-conformist and anti-social behaviour (Muncie, 2004). The relationship between social work practice and the law is a complex one and needs to be understood in a broad context. In the absence of consent from the client, the law recognizes that the disclosure of information may be justified in the broader public interest. This can include avoiding serious harm to others and the fair administration of justice such as allowing an individual the benefit of a fair hearing before the law (Brayne, Martin & Carr, 2001). Young People who Offend Doubts regarding the validity of official statistics have led to criminologists increasingly turning to other measures such as self-report studies. These provide a more accurate picture of hidden crime, shed light on why offending occurs, and also depict the extent to which crime correlates with other social factors such as gender, race, and socio-economic position. The studies have mainly been focused on young people who offend (Muncie, 2004). The juvenile justice system is based on the concept that children are developmentally different from adults, hence juvenile delinquents are more receptive to treatment and rehabilitation than adult criminals. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) recommends that children and youth who enter the juvenile justice system should be treated appropriately through every stage of the program, including “prevention, early intervention, diversion, detention, probation, residential care, incarceration and post-release care”. Without an effective treatment program, children’s delinquency conditions worsen through time and develop into adult criminal behavior. A result oriented treatment plan consists of: “screening, assessment, treatment and aftercare protocol” (NASW, 2008). However, public demand for a tough retributive approach to juvenile crime such as the fatal shooting tragedies in schools, can compel the use of high levels of punishment by the justice system, thus undermining the possibilities of improvement in the youth’s delinquency conditions. Legislation for Modifying Youth Offenders’ Behaviour To protect the public, the formulation of legislation in relation to youth justice commands a central position in the political agenda since the last several years. Between 1998 and 2003 there were four major pieces of legislation passed about youth in England and Wales: the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998; the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1998; the Criminal Justice Act, 2003 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, 2003. In addition to establishing Youth Offending Teams to work with young people who offend and develop preventative strategies, the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 established the Youth Justice Board to oversee the operation of the Youth Justice System. Competing and conflicting demands are often faced by policy makers and social work practitioners because of the complexities of family life in the twenty-first century (Lishman, 2007). New Labour has employed a two-pronged approach to youth policy: promoting the welfare and protection of vulnerable children and preventing criminality. This has resulted in the development of some contradictory policies which are likely to have a disproportionate impact upon young people in the care system (Taylor & Smith, 2006). According to official prison statistics (Home Office, 2009) the sentenced young offender population has increased steadily since 1993 despite wide-spread concerns about prison overcrowding and overstretched budgets. There is a wide difference between the extensive use of youth custody and the government’s stated commitment to reducing the use of custodial provision for children (Directgov, 2009). The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 2002) expressed grave concern about the fact that increasing numbers of children in the United Kingdom were being placed in custody for lesser offences and for longer periods of time. This is in breach of Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which asserts that children should be locked up only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate time. Thus, once a child has committed a crime, the rights accorded to him or her under welfare-based rules may be superceded by criminal justice legislation (Taylor & Smith, 2006). The Juvenile Justice System Government systems that deal with children in conflict with the law may vary in different countries. Such systems as the court, welfare system or administrative system may operate within the adult criminal justice system, or may function outside the judicial system through committees, commissions or administrative panels. Wherever the justice system includes a degree of specialization for children, whether the system is based on courts, the welfare system, or an administrative system, it is termed as a juvenile justice system. In countries where there is no specialization to any extent, children in the criminal justice system are treated in the same way as adults (United Nations Office: 2007). Even while specialized procedures for children in conflict with the law may be used, an assessment of the varying needs of children, reference of the children to appropriate services, offer of care and assistance with support for reintegration into the community are important actions that need to be taken. Further, according to the United Nations Office (2007), the juvenile justice system should provide a child-friendly environment, using appropriate language and the minimum possible employment of physical restraints. In a justice system that is not responsive to a child’s needs, children under detention are at increased risk of abuse, violence, exploitation and consequent impact on health by injury, HIV/ AIDs. Preventive action against deep-rooted causal factors such as poverty, broken homes, lack of education, drug abuse, etc. need to be undertaken for children who are at risk of encounters with law enforcement authorities. Prevention helps reduce costs which would otherwise be incurred in correctional facilites (United Nations Office: 2007). Effectiveness of Current Legislation: Young People who Commit Crimes Current legislation on correcting youth offenders is effective to some extent. However, improvements in the family and juvenile courts can bring about more effective outcomes from the employment of current legislation. Feld (1998) states that by trying youth in one integrated court, the need for transfer hearings can be avoided, as also inconsistencies produced by offense exclusions, assures similar sentences for similarly situated offenders, removes punishment gap. Further, a single criminal justice system allows for the keeping of integrated criminal history records, which help to identify and increase the sentences of chronic offenders. However, the author states that the sentencing policy requires a graduated social control system that is consistently based on the developmental process of the individual. Incarceration of serious juvenile offenders requires criminal procedural safeguards that juvenile courts do not provide. Eliminating separate juvenile courts does not require incarcerating youth in adult jails and prisons. Separate age-segregated facilities are available at existing training schools and institutions. For younger offenders of less serious crimes, support can be provided at separate juvenile facilities, which will not be possible if they are incarcerated at adult correctional places. Flowers (1990) and Feld (1998) assert that in recent years the juvenile justice system has come under attack as a system incapable of responding to the serious, violent, adult-like adolescent offender. According to Fagan & Zimring (2000), New York’s crime commission officials proposed the use of harsher punishments for juvenile offenders of serious crime. Every American jurisdiction has provided for the transfer of serious cases from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice court, because of the limited capacity of the juvenile court to punish, restricted in both kind and amount of punishment that can be administered (Flowers, 1990). Thus, the main way in which the juvenile court can be improved is to allow the segregation of only minor juvenile offenders under the juvenile court system. Were the perpetrators to be of adult age the behavior of juveniles would not be considered as legal offences, in some cases, though they may not always be acceptable to the law enforcing authorities. Further, there are charges that sexual and racial discimination are practised in juvenile justice systems (Flowers, 1990). The serious cases of crime committed by children, adolescents or youth need to be considered only by adult criminal justice courts. However, this can be converted into an umbrella criminal justice system which deals with serious crime committed by youth as well as adults, and has all the rehabilitation processes that are normally provided to juveniles. This is supported by Hirschi & Gottfredson (1993) who believe that a single criminal justice system should be operated for both adults as well as juvenile offenders, “special treatment of juveniles is based on an erroneous image of developmental sequences, and misrepresents differences between juvenile and adult crime”. Crimes are committed by individuals with a tendency towards committing crime, who are low on self-control and are also faced with suitable opportunities. The tendency for crime varies continuously with age, but the age of the offender does not determine the meaning of criminal acts. Hence, distinctions based on age are groundless and cause difficulties in dealing with criminal issues. Current legislation dealing with young people who offend can be made more effective, by introducing the following significant concepts: Legislation Includes Effective Treatment Programs in the Juvenile Justice System Current legislation dealing with young people who offend includes various intensive interventions, involvement of family members, integrated multimodal treatment approaches according to the developmental stage of each child or youth, and more severe punitive correction methods integrated with appropriate treatment programmes for high risk youths and serious offenders. All these factors are crucial, and need to be part of the legislation; and lack in any of them can adversely impact the effectiveness. Changing specific behaviors by using structured and intensive interventions Behavior modification techniques for improving interpersonal and basic social skills, self-control, anger management, and resistance to substance abuse have been found to reduce recidivism or relapse by as much as 50%. Behavioral modification techniques punish negative behaviors similar to the correctional model, but also reward positive behaviors (Abrams et al, 2005). Those treatments which involve longer contact hours with the emotionally disturbed youth achieve better results, and in institutional settings, treatments given by mental health professionals reveal improved outcomes as compared to interventions by corrections staff. Further, individual counseling to directly address behavior, attitudes, and perceptions is required. The cognitive-behavioral approach is effective for youth in the juvenile justice system because it is highly structured and focuses on the triggers for their disruptive or aggressive behavior. The therapy teaches youth intensively about the thought-emotion-behavior link, and works with them to modify their thinking patterns towards improved, more adaptive behavior when faced with challenging situations. By teaching thought control, that is halting or changing thoughts to avoid impulsive or criminal behaviors, cognitive behavioral therapy is found to reduce recidivism and re-arrests for at least one year after the treatment (Abrams et al, 2005). Community-based treatment programs are superior to institution-based program Intensive, community-based, and family centered interventions are found to be the most promising. Only some youth may need treatment in institutions; many more juvenile offenders can be appropriately treated in the community, where youth behavior can be addressed in its social context. Research on community based delinquency prevention programs worked on the principle that known risk factors for delinquency and substance abuse can be reduced by enhancing known protective factors. “Healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior in the family, school and community, which form the protective factors, directly promote healthy behaviors in children” (Welsh et al, 2005: 87). Hence, it is important to encourage bonding with the family, school and community that promote healthy beliefs and standards. The importance of involvement of family members in treatment and rehabilitation According to research conducted by Mulford & Redding (2007), training parents is found to be effective in treating behavior problems among children. In high risk youth, parent training has to be used in combination with other corrective and treatment methods, for beneficial outcomes. Further, family-focused interventions have shown positive impacts on child and family functioning, delinquent behavior, and recidivism. An effective treatment model is the Multi-Systemic Therapy. The ultimate goals of MST are to empower families to cope with the challenges of raising children with behavioral and emotional problems and to empower youth to cope with family, peer, school, and neighborhood difficulties. MST has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism by up to 70% and out-of-home placements by up to 64% in comparison with control groups in a number of randomized clinical trials. Moreover, Multi-Systemic Therapy is cost effective, providing savings in the criminal justice system and in protection against crime. Integrated, multimodal treatment approaches are essential This approach is a collaboration across a number of public agencies, such as juvenile justice and mental health, towards developing coordinated plans for family-centered, community-based services based on youth and family strengths. The “wrap-around” model for the treatment of juvenile delinquency, ensures that a family conceptualizes a single, individualized treatment plan, and receives a wide range of services and supports as part of that coordinated plan. Examples of wrap-around programs are the DAWN Project in Indianapolis and Wraparound Milwaukee in the United States of America. Wraparound Milwaukee has demonstrated a significant improvement in juvenile behavior, and a 42% drop in the number of residential placements over the first two years of the program, with substantial savings. “In some communities Wraparound has served as a comprehensive systems reform to coordinate all agencies working with emotionally troubled youth: including child welfare, mental health, special education and juvenile justice” (Mendel, 2002). Some other important common factors in effective treatment programs Recognizing the developmental stage of each youth and building on the individual strengths of each youth are essential. Interventions that focus on restorative restitution of victim directly by the juvenile offender through a combination of approaches; helping the young offenders to understand how their actions have affected their victim, discouraging them from viewing other people as potential targets, and teaching the youth to make positive choices, resolving disputes without aggression; understanding the futility of intensive punishment measures, and using flexible and graduated degrees of sanctions; empowering families to support their child’s positive activities and efforts to succeed academically; encouraging youth to forge links with prosocial peers; and conducting activity programs in the communities in which youth under treatment live, and also for youth returning to the community after confinement, with supportive programs to help in continued improvement and avoid recidivism (JAIBG, 2003). The use of graduated sanctions is effective: secure institutionalization for repeat serious, violent offenders; intermediate sanctions such as probation and electronic monitoring for first time serious offenders and repeat minor offenders; and immediate sanctions for non-violent offenders with day treatment (Siegel & Welsh: 2004). The Harsh Correctional Approach as in the Adult Penal System Due to the serious nature of crime often committed by juveniles, society’s point of view is to treat juvenile offenders on par with adult offenders. This means that they should receive punitive treatment with a harsh correctional approach. As in the adult penal system, the basic principle of correctional programs is punishment, relying on “systems of harsh penalties to correct offenders’ attitudes and behaviors” (Abrams et al, 2005: 8). Although punishment in the right amount and at the right time, can be effective, a strictly punitive environment does not improve the delinquency conditions of youth. It has the negative aspect of correctional staff tending to look out for even minor rule breaking offences, while overlooking positive actions by the youth. Further, the correctional approach does not focus on equipping youth offenders with skills and resources to prevent future criminal behavior. From research evidence, it is clear that punishment is not an effective deterrent and does not reduce recidivism in the long run. Different types of punishment including regular incarceration and severe programs, actually produced higher recidivism rates than lack of punishment (Gendreau & Goggin, 1996). Programmes ineffective when used alone are: surveillance, unstructured counseling, home confinement, probation services, drug testing, wilderness/ survival programs, electronic monitoring, and boot camps (Abrams et al, 2005). Conclusion This paper has highlighted legislation dealing with young people who offend. The explanations for offending, how legislation seeks to modify behaviour and protect the public have been investigated, the effectiveness of current legislation has been found to require more in-depth focus on some crucial factors for improving effectiveness. Children who commit crimes, with emotional and behavioral disorders, as well as high risk youth offenders present a unique set of challenges to the juvenile justice system, and consequently to the formulation of legislation. An integrated, specialized approach and case-specific treatment for young offenders can help to bring them into the mainstream, and reduce recidivism. Governmental legislation may be more effective if high-risk offenders are dealt with through the adult court using an integrated approach that blends corrective methods with appropriate treatment programs. At the same time, segregation of juvenile offenders of comparatively minor crimes through a special juvenile court will help to re-integrate minor offenders into society through the use of appropriate interventions, counseling, vocational training and the teaching of life skills. References Abrams, L.S., Kim, K. & Anderson-Nathe, B. (2005). Paradoxes of treatment in juvenile corrections. Child and Youth Care Forum, 34 (1): 7-25. Benekos, P.J. & Merlo, A.V. (2008). Juvenile justice: the legacy of punitive policy. Youth violence and juvenile justice, 6 (1): 28-46. Brayne, H., Martin, G. & Carr, H. (2001). Law for social workers. 7th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Directgov. (2009). Young people and custody. Retrieved on 29th April, 2009 from: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeople/CrimeAndJustice/CrimeAndTheLaw/DG_10027708 Fagan, J. & Zimring, F.E. (2000). The changing borders of juvenile justice. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Feld, B.C. (1998). Juvenile and criminal justice systems’ responses to youth violence. Crime and Justice, 24: 189-261. Flowers, R.B. (1990). The adolescent criminal. The United States of America: McFarland Publishers. Gendreau, P. & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective correctional programming. Forum on Correctional Research, 3:1-6. Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. (1993). Rethinking the juvenile justice system. Crime and Delinquency, 39 (2): 262-271. Home Office. (2009). Youth crime. Retrieved on 29th April, 2009 from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/youth-crime/ JAIBG (Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program) Bulletin. (2003). Best practices in juvenile accountability: overview. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Lishman, J. (2007). Handbook for practice learning in social work and social care: knowledge and theory. 2nd Edition. The United Kingdom: Jessica Kingsley Publications. Mendel, Richard A. (2002). Less hype, more help: reducing juvenile crime, what works – and what doesn’t. The United States of America: Diane Publishing. Muncie, J. (2004). Youth and crime. London: Sage Publications. NASW (National Association of Social Workers). (2008). Juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Retrieved on 28th April, 2009 from: http://www.naswdc.org/resources/abstracts/abstracts/juvenile.asp Siegel, Larry J. & Welsh, Brandon C. (2004). Juvenile delinquency: the core. California: Thomson Wadsworth. Taylor, C. & Smith, D. (2006). Young people in care and criminal behaviour. The United Kingdom: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. United Nations Office. (2007). Manual for the measurement of juvenile justice indicators. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Austria: United Nations Publications. Welsh, Wayne N., Jenkins, Patricia H. & Harris, Philip W. (1999). Reducing minority overrepresentation in juvenile justice: results of community-based delinquency prevention in Harrisburg. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 36: 87- 111. Read More