Law Breaking and Criminal Justice - Research Paper Example

Law breaking and Criminal Justice Introduction Antisocial behaviour (ASB) is a problem that may affect children at an early age, in middle and secondary schools up to adulthood. Teachers and parents play a major role in correcting antisocial behavior among children and adolescents while the adults are mainly dealt with through the criminal justice system. ASB in schools has often resulted in destruction of property and loss of lives in schools especially when the disgruntled adolescents organize violent strikes against the school administration. The history of antisocial behavior dates back in the early 19th century when various scientific studies revealed the occurrence of individuals who were mentally healthy but continued to behave in a manner that was unacceptable to the society despite having knowledge regarding their antisocial conduct. Many definitions have been put forward regarding ASB. This paper presents a critique of the meaning of ASB and how it should be tackled. It offers the various definitions of ASB, its origin, causes and political as well as media interventions regarding the issue. The paper points to some causative factors of ASB such as drug and alcohol influence, poor discipline in schools and poor parenting among others. It also highlights some theories for ASB labeling, otherness, ASB and social control, contemporary culture, different definitions and cultural differences. The nature/extent of ASB in UK- statistics, public perceptions, ASB as an urban issue, ASB in areas of social housing has been exemplified. The paper tries to establish the effects of ASB on the communities and the country at large as well as what it is costing the local authorities/government as well as strategies/methods used to reduce/stop the problem. It highlights how successful the strategies have been in solving the issue as well as recommendations of other actions that can be taken to tackle the issue. Antisocial Behaviour Antisocial behaviour has been defined in different viewpoints by various scholars. Squires & Stephen (2005) defined it as a constant pattern of disrespect and infringement for other people’s rights, which usually develops from infancy or in teenage years and persists in adulthood. The individual usually engages in actions that cause injury or disgrace to other people. The usual disagreements among people are different from ASB according to this definition. However, as Harradine et al. (2004) observe, the common disputes among neighbours in the society may result in antisocial behavior if they are importunate. For example, minor disputes might result in anger and fighting between individuals. Nevertheless, it may be regarded as antisocial behaviour when a person generates fights often thereby causing social disorder. The same applies to behaviors such as boisterousness, frightening other people, harassment and discrimination against certain groups and bullying among others. Stealing and destruction of property are also common antisocial behaviours that generate fear and insecurity in the society. Crawford (2003) defined antisocial behavior as recurring conduct that goes against what is accepted in the society’s moral standards, which makes an individual to remain in constant disagreements with other members of the society. For example, irresponsible individuals who are hostile to others may be insensitive in regard to the impact of their behaviors on others in the society. Such people pay no attention to social values and may not feel guilty about their actions and may be obstinate even upon punishment. Brown (2004) focuses on antisocial behavior as conduct that leads or may possibly result in aggravation fear or suffering to people who do not belong to the same family with the person behind the actions. In other words, the act does not consider actions against members of the perpetrator’s family as antisocial behavior. In contrast to the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, Macdonald (2006) defines antisocial behavior as misconduct within a household by one or more members or guests that may cause fear, irritation or harm to any other person who might be residing within the house hold. In this definition, antisocial behaviour has been given a broader definition to encompass misconduct within a family. In general, the different definitions point towards persistent misconduct that is distressing or likely to cause harm and fear among other social problems. Studies to establish the origin of antisocial behaviours have been carried out since the early 19th century. The society has never lacked dishonest people in its midst, who assert their wrong doing even when they know they cause disgrace to others. The minds of the unscrupulous people are usually normal and regardless of their awareness regarding their illogicality, they continue with their irrational behavior (Ramsay, 2004). This perspective disputes the possibility of antisocial behavior originating from mental health problems. Crawford (2003) on the other hand identified some inborn characteristics among people with antisocial behaviors. They are difficult to reconstruct due to the inborn nature of their behavior. Kleptomaniacs belong to this category, and they usually steal not specifically to make any gains but because they always possess a strong desire to steal. Birnbaum postulated that antisocial behaviours may also originate from sociopaths, which is a term that he coined in 1909. It encompasses some environmental and heritable factors that influence the cognitive development of a child (Serbin & Karp, 2004). For example, growing up in a family that engages in antisocial behavior or among other children who are disobedient may lead to sociopathic tendencies. Mentors can also influence the behavior of an individual.  There have been varied and joint interventions across different media as well as political circles. In the UK, the government collaborates with the media in the development of policies aimed at enhancement of good conduct. Shared values are being used as the basis for identifying the acceptable social behaviour among citizens. Media and political talks have largely concentrated on antisocial behavior, portraying it as an epidemic and deteriorating problem that is adversely affecting neighbourhoods and a major hindrance to the fight against crime. Politicians are wooing voters by promising them new policies to deal with antisocial behaviors that are affecting families and citizens’ peace in general. Harradine et al. (2004) put forward the claim that antisocial behavior maintains an environment that is favorable for crime. Recently, the BBC reported that the UK Prime Minister revealed actions focused on suppressing and clearing out antisocial behavior among families. Government efforts are intended to enhance parental support for the children engaging in antisocial behavior. The courts will also be compelled to ban drinking for people convicted of crimes while under the influence of alcohol. In general, there are efforts across political circles to promise the public secure livelihoods. Neighbourhood policing has been highlighted as one of the strategies that will enhance protection of the public against antisocial behavior especially within the troubled estates (BBC, 2009). Teenage boredom is one of the factors associated with antisocial behaviour among young people. Under certain circumstances, adolescents tend to exhibit mood swings especially when they need to establish self identity, dignity as well as self assertion that they need no longer be treated as children by their parents and the public in general. At the same time, there are usually many changes occurring in their bodies due to hormonal and physical adjustments. Boredom results among the teens especially when they are unable to cope with the ever increasing challenges in school work, acquiring and loosing friends especially under the pressure of guardians, changes in the level of activity as the adolescent is expected to pay attention to more difficult tasks thereby reducing the time of play that was abundant in the previous years. Sometimes the teens find it difficult to let their fears and challenges known, which results in depression and loss of hope. Parents may accelerate teenage boredom especially if they do not understand the problems associated with the changes the children are undergoing (Flint, 2006). Alcohol and substance abuse among teenagers is one factor that contributes to antisocial behavior and poor performance in school. This is because the time that the student has for studies, recreation and personal responsibilities is limited, and therefore drinking has to fit in that time thereby disrupting the schedule for studying. On the other hand, the economic welfare of students largely depends on sponsors. The resources allocated to educational purposes normally do not include funds for purchasing alcohol and drugs which is a costly commodity. The students who engage in alcohol abuse tend to forego some of the activities such as educational trips to use the funds for drinking while others lack funds to purchase educational materials. This promotes unscrupulousness in the student as he/she struggles to acquire more funds. Alcohol consumption amongst youths in the UK is particularly high although the trend is global. Drug abuse in adolescents leads to truancy and disorder in educational institutions, which may cause fighting, strikes, and destruction of property, stealing and other social vices. There are many cases whereby students have been convicted of dealing in drugs in learning institutions (Mark et al. 2007). Poor parenting is also a major issue that is associated with antisocial behavior among children. Parents who abuse drugs usually encounter numerous problems in parenting. They are normally faced with difficulties in bringing up their children. This eventually tends to make them authoritarian in their parenting style. Authoritarian parents give their children punishment that will most likely leave the child feeling neglected or hated. They do not bother to offer explanations on the reasons for the punishment (Brooks, 1997). The children are usually socially withdrawn and exhibit a sense of disgust towards their parents’ conduct. Research has established that children whose parents are drug addicts are most likely to encounter problems in their early ages of development. They are most vulnerable to risky behavior such as engaging in early sexual activity due to incarceration of parents caused by problems associated with drug abuse and other antisocial behaviors. In general, antisocial behaviour among parents can be passed over to children and can create a good environment for misconduct among them. Horward Becker in the Labeling theory postulated that behaviours that do not conform to the societal standards of conduct may not be inborn in a person. Rather they may result from negative labeling of individuals in the society by the majority (Herman, 1993). In other words, the people who are regarded with low esteem and made to understand that they are inferior are likely to engage in antisocial behavior. The society classifies them in their own category which influences their conduct as well as the manner in which they relate with other members of the society, which confirms Robert Merton’s idea of ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ (Guyll et al. 2010). The ideology presented by this philosophy is the fact that believes or predictions regarding a particular occurrence may actually make it happen. For example, when the teacher is convinced that a student will fail in the final exam and eventually become a criminal, it may actually happen. Otherness is on the other hand used as a basis of predicting the people who are likely to commit antisocial behavior. This mainly happens when there are two groups of people whereby one is regarded as different in terms of certain aspects such as age, poverty, race and many factors that make people different from the mainstream group (Millie, 2008). For example, the young people usually get in to problems because of their age. It is generally believed that they are the people behind antisocial behaviors, for example if a shriek is heard in the neighbourhood at night, it is automatically believed to be a young person, and particularly a young man. This means that if policies are set to curb noise and other nuisances at night in the neighbourhoods, they would be directed towards young men. Other minority groups have suffered because of race and ethnicity. Social control is a significant determinant of what behavior is regarded as antisocial. For example, the actions that are regarded as social in the poor neighborhoods may not be acceptable in the up-market settlements. The rich exert control over the poor and other marginalized groups, which leads to criminalization of their activities and often get incarcerated. Neighbourhood policing largely affects these groups since many of their actions and behaviors are regarded as antisocial by the dominant group comprising the rich who control the values of society (Serbin & Karp, 2004). The contemporary culture of individualism has led to a situation whereby each person is focusing on personal development and struggle to amass enough wealth to cope with the demands of the contemporary lifestyles. There are few permanent jobs and therefore people tend to maximize their earnings whenever they are in employment, meaning that they become workaholic and shun from social associations that they view as a waste of time especially due to the fact that no gains are attached. Guyll et al. (2010) argue that such way of life in the contemporary society is generating depression and problems of craving for wealth. Anxiety due to lack of job security increases stress and chances of antisocial behaviour such as substance abuse and violence. Different cultures define ASB differently and therefore there lacks a common understanding regarding which behavior is social and which is not. The disparities lead to the immigrants being considered to be the perpetrators while on the other hand they view the mainstream culture as the architects of ASB. Unless people begin to appreciate cultural diversity in the UK and other countries that have populations from different cultural backgrounds, cultural differences will remain a major hindrance in the efforts to curb ASB. ASB in the UK reached an alarming level in the 2003 as indicated by the Harradine et al. (2004). More than 60, 000 cases of ASB were reported to all the concerned agencies in a single day. Littering and other ASBs associated with vehicle use and nuisance from reckless drivers has topped the list for several years, followed by general nuisance, both with more than 7,000 cases in a day. Harassment and threats, noise and unruly behaviors as well as vehicles packed in the wrong areas were also high ranging from 4000 to 5000 cases in a day. According to the Anti-Social Behaviour Working Group (2009) the number of ASB cases from April to September 2008 totaled to 21,631. However, these statistics were attributed to the public’s perception in regard to what ASB is. Some minor actions such as young men hanging around in the neighborhoods, graffiti, littering the environment among other actions are regarded as ASB in many settlements. In essence, urban areas are prone to ASBs especially due to the high and diverse population. Littering for example is significant in urban areas where most of the food products are wrapped in various packaging materials that the residents in the neighbourhoods tend to discard without caution. Inadequate packing facilities in the urban areas also lead to abandonment of vehicles, which is regarded as an ASB. The presence of nightclubs and other merrymaking places in urban areas increase noise and driving at high speed late in the night. Children are also exposed to many people with different behaviors which they are likely to copy while growing in urban areas than they would do in the rural areas. Social housing areas are also affected by the tenants who engage in ASBs such as dealing in drugs, causing nuisance to the neighbours through loud music, violence and the use of abusive language. Vandalism of neighbours’ property is also common in social settlements in the UK. Due to sharing of common facilities such as toilets and water, ASBs are common among neighbours who do not have consensus regarding how the public utilities should be used. Different people have different perspectives regarding hygiene and other forms of negligence. The landlords are not liable for such behaviours and sometimes the tenants are exposed to the impact of the ASB of neighbours (Brown, 2004). ASB has affected the lives of people in the country to a great extent. Criminal acts and injuries have been reported as a result of ASB especially in urban areas. Under-age use of alcohol is rampant and people have been facing intimidation within the social housing areas as a result of landlords not taking the responsibility of ASB among the tenants. It is not all the youth who are engaged in ASB. Rather, it is a minority group of boisterous individuals who are disgruntled by the manner in which the social systems operate. The neighbourhoods that are perceived to be affected with ASB are usually neglected as people search for safer areas free from nuisance. These behaviours also affect business in the area since investors shun areas where their property might be destroyed. Crimes are common in the regions where antisocial behaviours are common. They enhance the development of favorable hiding places for criminals. The quality of life among communities living in the areas affected by ASB deteriorates. ASBs lower the self importance of communities and also generate a sense of neglect and defenselessness (Guyll et al. 2010). Some of the ASBs are dangerous to humans especially if they are likely to produce deafening sounds such as fireworks that may affect infants, the aged and ailing members of the society. Ramsay (2004) observes that communities are shattered by ASB. For example in the UK, ASB resulting from drinking has had adverse impacts on parenting capacity. In many occasions substance abusers tend to be aggressive and exert physical violence on their children. In some cases, children have fallen victims of incest rape. These are some of the most undesirable behaviors that generate fear and low quality of life within families. The children remain frightened due to insecurity of parental assault, especially for girls. Other risks that make the children fearful are the fights that alcohol and substance abusing parents engage in while under influence. Children are exposed to ASB and are at a risk of acquiring a negative attitude towards others in the community. They suffer from low self esteem and shun inviting friends in their home in case their dad came home drunk and behaved in a way that could be shameful in the view of their friends. At times children refuse to identify themselves with a drunken parent. They are socially weak and would never like their family problems to be known by other children who may scorn them. Other parents warn their children to avoid friends from families accused of ASBs, which leads to discrimination. ASB also affects the ability of families to secure good housing for their families since social landlords may refuse to rent out their houses to people who might cause others to vacate the premises through causing nuisance in the neighbourhood. On the other hand, people are often victimized especially if they belong to the group that is labeled for ASB such as the youth and the minorities. Other behaviors have a negative impact on the environment such as littering, and some such as negligence especially in the use of public utilities may result in public health problems (Jones et al. 2006). ASB is among the aspects of society that the government and local authorities in the UK are spending substantial amounts of money to deal with. Romeo et al. (2006) reported that £3.4 billions are used annually to curb the problem. The Home Office ASB Unit spends more than £20 million to implement activities in the ASB action plan. The unit directs local ASB approaches through its 373 funded ASB coordinators. It also supports practitioners through training and other forms of empowerment. The issuance of warning letters is regarded as one of the inexpensive interventions for ASB using up to £66 per day. Other interventions such as contracts for acceptable behaviour and ASBOs are more costly, ranging from £230 and £3,000 per month respectively. Children requiring the services of practitioners as a result of ASB consume substantial amounts of money. They seek treatment for accidents resulting from disobedient behaviour. Some are treated for burns, bone fracture and muscle abrasions, being knocked down by vehicles and other severe injuries that could be avoided through good behavior. The NHS incurs an average cost of £5960 annually per child (Fletcher, 2004). These are significant funds that can be applied in other sectors of the economy. The high amounts are attributed to few children with ASB spending high amounts of money for health services. The government has developed several strategies to deal with ASB in the neighbourhoods as well as in cities. In England and Wales, the ASB Act has facilitated the prevention of ASB. The rest of the UK has comparable measures such as ASBOs which are applied by courts to protect the public from ASB. The perpetrators of ASBs are prevented from freely interacting with other people in places where they committed the offence, such as public arboretums and other social places. The local council applies for the imposition of ASBOs through a case officer. The imposition is made by the court after the case officer gives an account of the behavior of the accused at the particular place. Warning letters are used after which the individual can be prohibited from attending the social places (Brown, 2004). Acceptable Behaviour contracts are applied by police and other institutions such as local housing office and schools to eliminate the requirement of an ASBO by voluntarily offering to curb ASB. Crack House Closure Order if implemented upon request by the police, whereby the courts order the closure of houses believed to have been used by perpetrators of drug production and supply. Local authorities, social landlords and housing trusts may evict a tenant who engages in ASB upon application to the demoted tenancies court. Measures have been put in to place to enhance protection of the public by the police or other officers appointed for curbing ASB in the neighbourhoods under the dispersal power. Penalties are also charged to perpetrators of ASB in the community (Macdonald, 2006). The strategies to curb ASB in the UK have been successful in alleviating ASB in the urban centers and neighbourhoods. In 2003 for example, Brogan (2005) reported that 65% of the people who received interventions discontinued their ASB. The figure was higher in 2004 and 2005. Nevertheless, there are a certain percentage of individuals who continue with their undesirable actions even after interventions. For example, the prohibitions from going to social places applied through the ASBOs have been breached often, even though the person does not engage in ASB. The departments concerned with law in the local governments are blamed by the ASB coordinators for their lack of ability in the application of the laws regarding ASB. The untimely manner in which they respond to ASB cases is a major cause of frustration among the residents. On the other hand, the interventions are faced with a major drawback of the failure of witnesses to avail evidence in courts to support claims against ASB due to worries of acts of vengeance by the accused (Campbell, 2002). The parents need to be encouraged to cooperate with teachers to enhance acceptable behavior among children. Social landlords on the other hand need to play a role in preventing ASB in the neighbourhoods by reporting tenants engaging in ASB to the authorities. Members of the community also need to join efforts to establish ways of dealing with misconduct in their midst and most importantly to encourage witnesses among the community members to offer their testimony, which is significant in establishing the truth regarding ASB. The local authorities need to improve their understanding regarding the ASB regulations for them to be effective in applying them, while on the other hand the police response needs to improve to safeguard the public from ASB. Stakeholders and partner agencies need to be involved in curbing ASB and improving the quality of life in the neighbourhoods (Serbin & Karp, 2004). Conclusion Antisocial behavior has various definitions, but is generally associated with persistent misconduct in an individual that causes displeasure among other people. Studies concerning ASB began in the early 19th century, and many theories have continued to emerge to explain the issue. There have been many political and media interventions aimed at dealing with the problem. The UK government has engaged efforts to prevent ASB and to promote the quality of life in the neighbourhoods. Policies are in place and further efforts are still being made through funding projects to facilitate families to cope with ASB among children. Various measures such as warnings, ASBOs and penalties are some of the strategies applied to prevent ASB. These strategies have been successful, although there is still a gap that exists in regard to bleaching the rules. The local governments are not empowered enough in regard to application of the ASB laws while on the other hand the witnesses of ASB are intimidated making it impossible to present crucial information against the accused in courts. It is important to establish more strategies of dealing with ASB in the UK especially since the rate of occurrence is still high. Parents, agencies and stakeholders can be involved in improving the approaches towards curbing ASB in schools, urban areas as well as within the neighbourhoods. References BBC, 2009. We're not done yet, insists Brown, viewed on 18th April 2010 at, Brogan, D. 2005. Anti-social behaviour: An assessment of current management of Information systems and the scale of anti-social behaviour order breaches resulting in custody, London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Brooks P. 1997. Consequences of Growing up in a Poor Family: The Impact of Insensitive Parenting, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Brown, A.P. 2004. “Anti-social Behaviour, Crime Control and Social Control”, The Howard Journal Vol. 43, 2, pp. 203-211  Campbell, S. 2002. Implementing Anti-social behaviour Orders: message for Practitioners, London: Home Office Crawford, A. 2003. “Contractual Governance of Deviant Behaviour”. Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 30, 4, pp 479-505 Fletcher, H. 2004. Anti-social behaviour Order-Analysis of the first six years, London: NAPO.  Flint, J. 2006. Housing and Anti-social Behaviour: Perspectives, Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press Guyll, M., Madon, S.,  Prieto, L., & Scherr, K. C. 2010. “The Potential Roles of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies, Stigma Consciousness, and Stereotype Threat in Linking Latino/a Ethnicity and Educational Outcomes”. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 66, 1 pp 113-130 Harradine, S., Kodz, J., Lernetti, F. and Jones, B. 2004. Defining and Measuring Antisocial Behaviour. Home Office Development and Practice Report No. 26. London: Home Office. Herman, N. J. 1993. “Return to Sender: Reintegrative Stigma-Management Strategies of Ex-Psychiatric Patients”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 22, 3 pp 295–330. Home Office, 2003. Respect and Responsibility - Taking a Stand against Anti-social Behaviour. London: Home Office Jones, A., Pleace, N. and Quilgars, D. 2006. Addressing Antisocial Behaviour - An Independent Evaluation of Shelter Inclusion Project. London: Shelter Behaviour. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing Macdonald, S. 2006. “A suicidal woman, roaming pigs and a noisy trampolinist: refining the ASBO’s definition of antisocial behaviour”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 69, 2 pp 183–213 Mark, A., Karen H. Michela, M., Karen, T., Sara, H., Tony, A., Dominic, H., & Eduardo F. 2007. Predictors of risky alcohol consumption in schoolchildren and their implications for preventing alcohol-related harm, viewed on 19th April at Millie, A. (2008). Anti-Social Behaviour, Buckingham: Open University Press Ramsay, P. 2004. “What is anti-social behaviour?” The Criminal Law Review, Nov.: pp 908–25 Romeo, R., Knapp, M. & SCOTT, S. 2006. “Economic cost of severe antisocial behaviour in children – and who pays it”. The British Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 188 pp 547-553 Serbin, L. A. & Karp, J. 2004. “The Intergenerational Transfer of Psychosocial Risk: Mediators of Vulnerability and Resilience” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 55 pp 333-363, 2004 Squires, P & Stephen, D.E. 2005. Rougher Justice: Young People and Anti-social Read More