The Welfare and Justice Approach to Youth Crime - Essay Example

Juvenile crime and justice is undoubtedly one of the most serious social and legal problems in England; with concern being shared by both the and the public since both have a stake in the matter that has troubled the nation for centuries. The issue of application of full legal force of criminal law to children that have brought about great contention and with the age of criminal responsibilities varying in several countries, with England at 10, Scotland 8 and wales 7. The Children’s and young person’s act of 1969 is considered the forerunner of the justice and welfare system in England today, it took a, justice based on welfare approach, and set out to raise the age of criminal responsibility although this never came to pass. The 1964 white paper was one of the attempts to understand and deal with youth crime, drawn from the recommendations of the Langford committee which found that youth crime was often caused by personal and family problems and accordingly suggested a family setting to discuss and solve such problems (Goldson and Jamison 2002, p. 84). In 1960’s, the assumption on youth welfare was that justice should be focused on meeting the youths needs, as opposed to punishing their deeds. In fact, in the post war era, both conservatives and labour party agreed that crime by youths was more of a social and physiological issue than a criminal one. Pursuant to this, they tried to decriminalize youth crime by putting it in the hand of social workers and psychologist as opposed to police officers and magistrates. However, in later years, these attempts were met with stiff resistance, more so from b the legal and probation establishment. The idea of treating youth crime as welfare cases was also heavily critiqued by criminologists who argued that the humanitarians denied children legal rights, which made state intervention even more necessary. Around the 1970s, the integral suppositions underlying welfarism came under fire from many sides of the political arena in a movement dubbed ‘Return to Justice’, which held that Welfarism as an attrition to civil liberty. The right wing also opposed it arguing it was too soft, and ineffective since it failed to protect the rights of children on practical, or theoretical grounds, and it was never able to point out exactly what a child’s best interests were in any case. On a practical level, it was rejected since it disregards crucial legal safeguards and leaves the young offenders venerable since their fate was often decided by the subjectivity of professional’s discretionary powers. The return to justice movement also explicitly demanded that offenders, their age notwithstanding must and should be made accountable for their actions, as such, welfarism was seen as a soft landing for child criminals who deserved heavier punishment. A retrospective examination of England will depict a harsh picture in terms of youth justice due to disregard for their welfare by the justice system, the results of this harshness has; owever, not always been the best. In the 80’s Bostals, which were institutions where youth offenders would be institutionalized, for instance lead to a marked increase in crime around that period. Today a child below 10 years is considered incapable of committing a crime although before 1998 the age was between 10 and 14. This was largely due to the doctrine of doli incapax assumed that a child under 14 was incapable of differentiating right from wrong (Walsh 1998). However, today, anyone between the ages of 10 and 17 is cannot escape responsibility by virtue of their age because the doctrine is by modern thinking illogical since a 14 year old, is perfectly aware of the difference. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 increased the list of offences that youths aged 10 to 13 can be prosecuted and detained for long periods under, section 53 of Children and Young Persons Act 1933, with many arguing there is no need to protect children from the law. Under children’s act 1989 section 1, the welfare of children is seen to since the court is required to put it foremost in matters pertains to property, physical psychological and educational needs as well as special circumstances (Youth Justice Board 2008, p. 9). The welfare and justice approach to youth crime has played a crucial role in making children accountable for their crimes as well as rehabilitating them, so they do not go back to their criminal ways in posterity. By creating Youth offending teams as independent entities, as well as creation of separate assessment models, the state has managed to make considerable steps forward in ensuring justice and welfare for youthful offenders. These have enabled the targeting of children in special or marginalized groups through their families with initiatives such as the Sure start program. ECM (Every Child Matters) has also allowed the system to pay attention to every youthful offender giving due consideration before determination of what action should be taken against them. Notwithstanding, the system has come under heavy criticism from various sectors, the main challenge they say is that the government has focused too much on the criminal activities and neglected the children’s causes. As such, while following the 1998 policies that recommend toughness on young offenders, it does not pay enough focus to why the crimes are committed, thus to some of the critics the system only serve to fill jails with young offenders (Arthur 2010, p.61). The ratio of crimes committed by the youths and those for which they are convicted for is today is greater than one to a hundred with the re-offending rate for those who went through the system close to a hundred percent (Palmer 2011). This is because although the justice and welfare system today are supposed to involve constant supervision, conversely, the youth as are in most cases left to their own devices and come to realize they only need to avoid getting caught not to change their conduct. As a matter of facts, the fact that a child has been through the youths justice systems almost seems to guarantee that they will re-offend; this paints a poor picture of the systems which comes out as self-defeating and pursuing only short-term solutions. Over the years, the society’s ways of dealing with youthful crime  paradigmatically changed from the mediaeval times when children would be hanged for as little as stealing bread even when they were starving. Conversely, the welfare and justice system today that tries to consider the child’s situations and base its actions based on their best interest and tries to avoid such radical actions where possible. However the issue of youthful crime still persists despite the good intentions, ultimately the solution will have come from treating the courses of the crime, as opposed to the crime itself. Social factors must be considered such as; the child’s upbringing, and their environment and steps be taken to ensure children do not exist in a hostile or cruel environment that can lead to their turning to crime. References Arthur, R. 2010. “Young Offenders and the Law: How the Law Responds to Youth Offending” London: Taylor & Francis. Print. The Youth Justice Board. 2008. “Exploring the Youth Justice System; An introduction”. [Online] Available at http://labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/5193/YJ_k523_1/sco.htm# [Accessed on 1 January 2013] Goldson, B. and Jamieson, J. 2002. “Youth Crime, the ‘Parenting Deficit’ and State Intervention: A Contextual Critique” Sage Publications. [Online] Available at http://troublesofyouth.pbworks.com/f/goldson%20and%20jamieson%20-%20youth%20crime,%20parenting%20deficit.pdf [Accessed on 1 January 2013] Palmer , A. 2011. “Britains youth justice system is utterly unfit for purpose”. The Telegraph . [Online] Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8917393/Britains-youth-justice-system-is-utterly-unfit-for-purpose.html [Accessed on 1 January 2013] Walsh, C. 1998. “ Irrational Presumptions of Rationality and Comprehension”.. [Online] Available at. http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1998/issue3/walsh3.html [Accessed on 1 January 2013] Read More