Controversies That Face the UK Government - Case Study Example

The UK justice system has been criticized its laws system which is characterized by punitive measures in approaches in dealing with youth justice. Since its inception, the UK has been on the front in disciplinary measures on the youths not taking into perspectives the international recognition of the youths as under aged and need to be treated differently when it comes to justice installation. There has been an outcry among the human watchdog communities accusing the UK for taking excessive measures when dealing with the youths (Abramson 34). The new laws which replaced the hailing era of the 1997-2010 forums have not surpassed the criticism since they also encompass the some punitive aspects1. This paper outlines some of the surrounding controversies that face the UK government when it comes to dealing with youth justice. The UN, through its secretary has raised an alarm on UK’s justice system and called for a review that will transform the system to allow for age recognition on judgment. According to the human watchdogs in the UK society, the UK government just like the US government must comply with the regulations set by the Human rights department of the United Nations failure to which will lead to incoherence in the society. The paper also depicts some of the examples of the youths who have perished from the harsh laws of the country and the poor treatments they get while in custody. Introduction There are a number of measures which have been brought forward by the New Labor Government in the UK in correlation with the new youth justice framework. Some of the new regulations adopted in the country include: setting up of a youth justice board which will be able total review youth related issues, formation of youth offending teams and ensuring the re-structuring of the non-custodial penalties to be offset to the youths in court. Also at the same time the government vehemently pursued a campaign which thwarted anti-social behaviors in the society2. The new labor platform in the country unfortunately has seen the rise of the number of youths arrested and charged aged between 15-17 years (McAra 32). As compared to the years 2000-2010 and the period 2011-2014, youth punishment in the country has risen by a record high of 43% which is basically too high as compared with the previous periods. The government vehemently supports its move by claiming that they are trying to shape the society for the better by ensuring that youth crime prevalence in the country is trimmed down or stopped for the better. However, according to the council of human rights chairman Mr. Hammarberg, crime reduction does not succeed by instilling corporal punishment, he further points out that the likelihood of recurrence of a crime for a youth jailed is 79% as compared to 30% of a youth who is taught about transformation3 (Benekos and Merlo 30). Although there are those individuals who support the government move by strongly depicting that welfare and justice approaches are frameworks which have long been phased out. According to this group of individuals the society needs trimming from all the unnecessary evils and the best techniques to use is to allow punishment for all the law offenders regardless of the age bracket (Balvig 170). Cultures of control Numerous published commentaries have been emanating from the current society on youth punishment. For instance the Children’s Legal Centre/Y Care International (50) campaign report, juxtaposes that all states in the globe have strongly retained highest degrees of punitive responses when it comes to the youth offenders4. In the UK for instance juvenile punishment increased by 43% in the years 1990s to hit a high figure of 105,600 in the year 2006. From almost the same period since 1989 many other states have taken a punitive road and permit execution of the youths aged between 16 and 17 who committed punishable crimes in the society. Numerous of this countries still retain the powers of punishment by life imprisonment without parole. For instance in the year 2005, approximately 2,225 youths faced the sentence in which 60% of them were blacks, this is according to a report published by the Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International (25)5. Principle of best interest is no longer being established in the court systems in the country this is because, the courts of juvenile have been brushed off and they are no longer operational in the country (Cavadino and Dignan 112). This is the same case in the US system where in 1988; the country underpinned its juvenile court systems and instead resented to adopt a common court for all the people in the society regardless of the age6. Just like other countries which have adopted child punishment moves, the UK has eased the transfer of young persons to the adult systems, this means that the country has created a mandatory minimum custody sentence which has undermined the principle of confidentiality by the enhancement of sharing defendants by the youths, entire society, media, education sector and other social service agencies7 (Amnesty International, 123). This has given rise to approximately 7500 youths held in adults jails (Campaign for Youth Justice, 134)8. The depth of punitive punishment in the UK is astonishing, and since the 1990s has been rising without any considerations from the government. However, the government has continuously been holding that their position is meant to bring positive aspects in the society. Some of the distinct social pressures that have led to the prevalence of the disturbing figures include: economic pressures, moral pressures and the pragmatic pressures in the society and the need to attain change. Wacquant’s thesis also seems to hold true when policy projections are to be taken into considerations in the last two decades in England and wales. According to Wacquant, there has been a doubling populations of children detained in the Juvenile secure estate since 1993, this is the same projections which are also exhibited in the US9. The correlation between the European countries statistics depicts that the whole problem is regional rather than country specific. Assessing rights compliance According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), every child has a right to protection, participation, personal development and to material provision. These aspects were exposed to thorough assessment in 1989 by the UNCRC and letter reviewed in the year 2000 to accommodate for any changes that may be associated with them since the society was generally degrading on youth matters10 (Jepsen 50). In addition to the children rights the body advocated for the core principles of juvenile justice by campaigning for best interests of the child, custody as a last resort, separation from adults and processes that must respect the dignity of the child. In the year 2006 many countries reviewed the convention and applied it in their legal systems this is with the exception of the US and the UK which claimed that parental rights should not be overstated (Krisberg 100)11. Almost in the same year the European Union and the United Nations reviewed their stand to accommodate for the changes in the society to uphold the interests of the youths in the society. This came at the wake of such countries like UK and US who had forfeited the need to uphold the UNCRC conventions platform in their legal systems12. According to the UN conventions, the children in conflict with the law ought to be treated with dignity and the respect they deserved; this should take into perspectives the vulnerabilities the youths may be exposed to and their lack of awareness of the consequences if they breach the law. Basically the UN advocated for a transformational kind of law which takes a more educational approach than the prior systems in the country (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 150)13. The UN acknowledged a number of jurisdictions in the UK and ascertained the inclusion of the following laws to govern juvenile protection: child protection laws, child trafficking, sexual exploitation and the recruitment of children for armed conflict, measures to give children a voice through school council or youth parliaments, legal presentation in juvenile courts and an attempt to divert from court through mediation and restoration. However, according to a report published by the UNCRC committee responsible for juvenile rights has established that the implementation of the proposed laws always happens as an afterthought in the legal court, which basically thwarts the essence of the laws. This can be quoted from the report as :- “…many States parties still have a long way to go in achieving full compliance with CRC, e.g. in the areas of procedural rights, the development and implementation of measures for dealing with children in conflict with the law without resorting to judicial proceedings, and the use of deprivation of liberty only as a measure of last resort…The Committee is equally concerned about the lack of information on the measures that States parties have taken to prevent children from coming into conflict …..” (UNCRC, 01)14. Racialization has also been an impending problem in the UK; questions have been raised on the government’s role to eradicate discrimination in their legal systems. Although it may prove cumbersome to collect data on ethnic grounds of all the children and the young people that pass through the court systems in the country (Garland 78)15. It is apparent that 75% of all the juveniles in the UK jails are encompassed of the minorities in the country. as much as it can be difficult to portray that the minority class is proofing difficult to control and therefore the need for the country to neutralize their effects and exclude them from the common advantages or rights, the UK government needs to be answerable to the claims that the large majority of the law offenders in their jails encompass the minority class (Wacquant, 55)16. Research has depicted that of all the minority groups in Europe the Romans encompass the largest proportion; their treatment is normally associated with harassment, infringement and ghettoization. Also of the 100,000 prisoners in the EU countries possess no citizenry identification. Estimating rates of custody There are a number of sources which give the details on particular states populations of juveniles in custody. Some of the reports are published by the UN and EU, however these bodies have claimed of practicing partiality on the manner in which they conduct their activities since it is illustrated that some countries information misses out in the reports or essentially study on them occurs late in time (Muncie, 190). Thus, this lack of reliable data that depicts the real actions on ground when it comes to dealing with the juvenile is an illustration of the fact that there a high degree of neglect which is skewed to the subject17. This means that even though the data was to be recorded effectively there will be a minimal use of the data since, there is a variation on what constitutes a child or a juvenile in different countries. this is apparent in the different age brackets which are given to portray the a juvenile, some countries start as low as 7 years while others commence at 15 years of age18. These discrepancies make it hard for the law watchdogs to clearly point out the problems that these youths face in the society19. According to the European sourcebook (21), lack of conformity is a big hindrance when it comes to instilling uniform rights protection on the youths in the society20. Taking into perspectives these warnings the UK is the 2nd with the highest prevalence of penal sentences against the youths in the society coming second after the US, this is according to the estimates of the populations on the world prison made by Walmsley and the International Centre for prison studies (ICPS) based at the Kings College London21. Walmseley (30) approximates that over 9 million people are being held in penal institutions across the world at any one time. This data however, does not give statistical information on the youths in penal institutions, but some other researchers have depicted that the number of youths in those institutions ranges between 1 and 2 million22 (Goldson, 108). These data states that the UK has approximately 730 incarcerations as per 100,000 populations, the England and Wales rate of 148 places it among the highest in Europe23. Also in 2000 and 2005 the country has recorded an increase in the populations in prisons (Put and Walgrave 113). Anti-social behaviors Some individuals have argued that the new law invented by the anti-social behavior has shown that the government does not take into considerations the rights and significance of its citizens in the society. It is basically as if the government is bound by the politics of crime and disorder. The major impact of the neo-conservative criminologist James Wilson is directed to positivity, Wilson propagated that poverty is not the main cause of a crime, according to him the society mistake the origin of the crime this is after the prevalence of the crime rates in the 1960s. James in support of his argument states that crime rate was rising because of the collapse of the civic socialization of the youth in the country; this was attributed to community failure and family breakdown24. Wilson and George Kelling point out that if some activities in the society are not checked they transform into crimes in the future, such activities include: incivilities, vandalism, graffiti and among other pointers of crime. This aspect of anti-social behavior has been understood by majority of people as a form of nuisance which demands early conception to prevent or decline some common hazardous behaviors that may later translate into criminal occurrences in the future.25 The anti-social concept was introduced by the crime and disorder act 1998, an anti-social behavior can be termed as a civil disorder that can be made by the law enforces and other agencies on anyone over the age of ten whose conducts are likely to cause harm or create harassment. Its most controversial aspect is that the punishment can be up to five years imprisonment despite the punish ability of the original offence26. An estimation of around 42% of anti-social behaviors made against juveniles are breached and approximately 46% of the breached receive custodial sentences this transcends to about 50 children a month serving imprisonment under the anti-social behavior platform (Goldson 91). Andrew Ashworth argues about the relevance of the anti-social behaviors need in the society. According to Andrew, it is pointless to allow the translation of the law by a sleight of hand, the high degree of incoherence depicted by the law questions the aspects of the anti-social behaviors27. Jill Peay has also raised a number of questions regarding the application of the anti-social laws in the country as a yardstick to make judgments and implicates the youths. She notes that a survey revealed that the Anti-social behaviors imposition on youths aged between 17 and 16 in the year 2004 depicted that 35% of the children were diagnosed with mental conditions or exhibited learning problems (Van Dijk et al 153)28. Below is a study conducted by the British Institute for Brain- injured Children which clearly depict her explanations:- “First, the case of a 14-year-old child with the cognitive ability of a 7 year old, learning difficulties, a language impairment and suspected attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He had a nine o’clock curfew imposed on him, yet he could not tell the time. Not surprisingly…………13 of the previous 24 months in custody for breach. Yet, during this period, he committed no other criminal offence……….” (Von Hofer, 30)29. The new labor has been exposed to a large number of criticisms which hail from a number of people in the society. For instance the human rights campaigners have blamed the government for the adoption of the new labor‘s youth justice policy which has risen the number of youths in prison across the country. Basically the government’s obsession with the youth’s generation is unhealthy and its prevalence in the UK is something which needs redress. In particular there has been a rise in the number of children aged 15-17 years being sentenced to custody, the most recent figures have illustrated that the number has doubled in a span of three ten years which begs the question, is the government against the youths? (Rechea 100)30. Of all these children in custodial services, 90% of them exhibit high substance abuse while a quarter of them are completely illiterate. This figures point out a finger to the government in denying the children their rights. According to the human rights commission, a child has a right to education and any other necessary provisions deemed as important for survival. This is completely not true in the case of the UK which instead engages on youth oppression31 (Piacentini, Lamson and Walters 45). Some of the tragic youth custodiesare discussed below:- Child deaths in Custody In august 2004, a 14 year old Adam Rickwood was reported to be found dead while in custody. He became the youngest child to die while in custody in the recent years. In the period 1990 and 20089, 2 children have been reported dead in penal custody (Winterdyk 31). Of all these deaths it is only two which were found to be self-inflicted; this is according to a report published by the UN and the EU32. Psychological trauma has been a major contributing factor to the attempted suicides which have happened in these dens. For instance in 1998 and 2002 there were approximately 1659 reported incidents of self-injury or attempted suicides by the juvenile prisoners in England and Wales33. Another major concern has been exhibited by the media over the use of excessive force during the arrest of the youths (Tonry 530). This is stipulated in:- “Restraint techniques vary according to the type of institution. They include inserting a prison officer’s knuckles into a child’s back to exert pressure on their lower ribs and using the back of an officer’s hand in an upward motion on the …..”(Walmsley, 27)34. Numerous children are subjected to these restraintsdespite the fact that they have proved to be detrimental to them, for instance a 15 year old Gareth Myatt died under the emblem of a home officer who approved a restraint technique commonly termed as a double seated embrace, in addition Seven-stone Gareth also perished from the choke of his own vomit after two male member of staff and a female member held him down on his bed at the Rains brook Secure training Centre in Northampton shire in the year 2004. These matters however have been concealed by the concerned authorities who block out the reality on the ground. As much as we may burry our heads in the sand numerous negative things are happening (Goldson 27)35. Since the publication of a penal inquiry into the treatment of the young offenders by Lord Carlile in 2006, little has changed in the way the UK legal system is skewed. This publication criticized a number of negative factors that played negatively to the rights of the children in the society in accordance with the human rights stipulations or acts (Pratt et al, 204)36. The publication condemned critically the use of force or physical restraint during an arrest and also propagated against the forceful strip searching and solitary confinement which is still being used to manage the behaviors of the young offenders under custody. In January 2005 Gareth Price aged 16 died while in custody after being isolated in a segregation unit at Lancaster Farms young offender’s institution in Blackburn. After an inquiry which was done at Stoke Health in Shropshire it was found that in September 2005 and 2006 the youth were placed on a solitary confinement for up to seven days on 73 occasions. This is an astonishing assessment since the children go through dilapidated conditions, which is contrary to the human rights clause (Snyder 30)37. The prison service is still under scrutiny for the murder of Zahid Mubarak in March 2000 by a cellmate in Felltham young offender’s institution. A report which was established in 2003 indicated that the prison service failed to stop the murder although they had anticipated and held the capabilities of stopping its occurrence (Muncie 30)38. This raises the question whether also the juveniles are subject to racism. This is also the case which happened on a number of other occasions. According to the human watchdogs, 62% of the murders which are taking place in these prisons either occur for non-residents or the minority of the residents in the country. This can be deciphered from the death of an African Caribbean in police custody39. There is a tendency that blacks are dangerous, this means that they are treated with contempt and at maximum force whenever they are arrested. The common stereotype of this class of people is that they are Big, Black and Dangerous to deal with; this makes them vulnerable to torture (Lappi-Seppala 77).40 Prisoners and rights It is a common trend to enquire what the rights of a given individual are under certain circumstances. The modern prison is encompassed with a number of factors some of which are contrary to the rights of the individuals they handle at a given time. For instance, the modern prison is justified with utilitarianism, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation of the individuals which may further entail hard labor and less eligibility41. A paradox creeps in when we compare the manner in which court proceedings were being held in the 18th century as compared to the 19th century (Estrada 650). In the 18th century the proceedings were done in privacy often times without the accused aware of any happenings, this was done while at the same time corporal punishment inflicted on the offenders to extort confessions. However, as much as this has changed in the 19th and the 21st century, a significant amount on treatment of the offenders have not been changed since an offender is still regarded as an outlaw without any legal rights, this is the case because in the UK, children are victimized (Junger-Tas 97)42. Many critics have also pointed out that in Britain the law ceases to work immediately an offender enters the prisons gates. This has brought out a factor of lawlessness in the society. The irony in this system is depicted because the institutions possess a complex web of rules and regulations which surround a prisoner’s life, but the institution itself accredits different rules of law practically non-existent. The prisoners are often prejudiced mainly because they are unaware of the real content of the rules, which on the other hand the prison management is fully informed of but choose to ignore them nevertheless (NACRO 234)43. Even on some solid grounds basis the court has on a number of occasions failed to give the right direction or decisions this is because the formal rules themselves are not legally enforceable. This factors and many others illustrate the continuance of the legacy of civil death offers a platform which seems to portray that the prison warders holds the key to a decision in the life in prison44. On its side the UK government has failed tremendously on its role to save the situation by improving the lives of its youth generations. Pressure from the Human agencies is no longer working; the government seems to have gone into a stage of dormancy in addressing such issues (Uit Beijerse et al 223)45. Lord Denning’s ruling in the year 1972 in a case of Becker v. Home Office (1972) that the prison did not give any color of right to a prisoner who is under their emblem depicts that, the prison administration should be left alone to decide the fate of the prisoners at their disposal. This is entirely unrealistic since just like any individual in the society is bound by a code of ethics and contract laws while working, why a prisoner warder should be protected by the same law they abuse. However, this has changed over the years and according to Lord Wilberforce’s declaration “under English law, a convicted prisoner, in spite of his imprisonment, retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication.” This illustrates that the law system is being given another chance to serve the people right (Pitts and Kuula, 160)46. Restorative Justice It will be completely unfair and disgruntling to claim that the whole law on the youths is all about punishments. According to the UK policy a number of changes are attained by ensuring that the youths are assisted to come up with techniques to live right and mingle friendly with the rest of the society47. The origins of restorative justice are immense which can be said that the main triggering aspect about this is the disillusionment element which is portrayed by the criminal justice. A number of supporters have arisen in the society who prefers the restorative aspect of the new laws, according to these individuals the best method to avoid a crime is to ensure that the society works and relates in harmony (Nelken 111)48. The Maori criticism was one of the factors that argued against the oppressive nature of the former law system (Kilkelly 41). According to these document drafted by Maori, the oppressive nature of the law had deprived the parents their responsibilities of taking care of the young ones. It also meant that the only correctional tool in the society was the criminal justice law organs in the country which on the other hand were more detrimental49. Thus, there was a need to have a different kind of structure which allowed the society shape their children in accordance with the national laws and regulations. It is also evident that the oppressive formula may not be very effective since the recurrence of the same crime may occur each time a juvenile is released from prison, this also calls for a more corrective law (Mears 480). Conclusion In conclusion, this is a survey which shows that the current problems surrounding the UK youth justice systems are right and happen on the ground. It is ironic to depict that the UK establishes or enjoys a democratic system of governance while on a certain segment exploits its citizens of their rights50. However, research has shown that any independent state which encompasses a strong legal environment possesses 40% of subjecting its citizens to human abuse instances; this is to mean that it is almost impossible for a country to attain perfect legality.Human rights themselves can be termed as social inventions in the society; this portrays these rights in a manner such that they can be manipulated by external factors. In his speech Hammerer calls for a stringent form of way to ensure that the privacy of the youths are protected which will in turn prevent the cases of vilification of children in the press and the avoidance of disclosure of criminal records (Stoorgaard 190)51. It is not always a matter of chance, the law should govern as it is drafted and taking into considerations all the exceptions captured. Works cited Abramson, Brownish. ‘Juvenile justice: The Unwanted Child’ in Jensen, E. andJepsen, J. (eds) Juvenile Law Violators, Human Rights and the Development of New Juvenile Justice Systems, 2006, Oxford, Hart. Amnesty International. Betraying the Young: Children in the US Justice System, 2008, AI Index AMR 51/60/98. Balvig, Franklin. ‘When law and order returned to Denmark’ Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 2004, vol.5, no.2 pp.167-187. Benekos, Peter and Merlo, Brigham. ‘Juvenile justice: the legacy of punitive policy’ Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2008, vol.6, no.1 pp.28-46. Campaign for Youth Justice. Jailing Juveniles: The Dangers of Incarcerating Youth in Adult Jails in America, 2008, www.campaignforyouthjustice.org Cavadino, Maceio. and Dignan, Jordan. Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach, London, Sage, 2008, print Children’s Legal Centre/Y Care International. Youth Justice in Action: Campaign Report, London, Y Care International, 2006, print. Children’s Rights Alliance. State of Children’s Rights in England, London, CRA for England. 2005, http://www.childrensrights.ie/ European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, secondedition, WODC, Den Haag. 2003, Print. European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, third edition, WODC, Den Haag. 2006, pp. 23, Print Estrada, Fred. ‘Juvenile violence as a social problem’ British Journal of Criminology, 2001, vol.41, pp.639-655. Garland, Douglas. The Culture of Control, Oxford, Oxford University, 2001, Press. Goldson, Bayle. ‘New Punitiveness: the politics of child incarceration’, in J. Muncie, G. Hughes and E. McLaughlin (eds) Youth Justice: Critical Readings, London, Sage. 2002, Print. Goldson, Brom. ‘Taking liberties: policy and the punitive turn’ in H. Hendrick (ed) Child Welfare and Social Policy, Bristol, Policy, 2005, Press. Goldson, Brom. ‘Child incarceration: institutional abuse, the violent state and the politics of impunity’ in Scraton, P. and McCulloch, J. (eds) The Violence of Incarceration, London, Routledge. 2005, Print Goldson, Brom and Muncie, J. ‘Rethinking youth justice: Comparative analysis, international human rights and research evidence’ Youth Justice, 2006, vol.6, no.2 pp.91-106. Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International. The Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, New York, Human Rights Watch. 2005, http://www.amnesty.org/ Jepsen, Jerich. ‘Juvenile justice in Denmark: from social welfare to repression’ in Jensen, E. and Jepsen, J. (eds) Juvenile Law Violators, Human Rights and the Development of New Juvenile Justice Systems, Oxford, Hart. 2006, Print Junger-Tas, James. and Decker, Steve. (eds) International Handbook of Juvenile Justice, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer. 2006, print Kilkelly, Ummy. ‘Youth courts and children’s rights: the Irish experience’ Youth Justice, 2008, vol.8, no.1. pp.39-56.24. print Krisberg, Braimson. ‘Rediscovering the juvenile justice ideal in the United States’ in Muncie. J and Goldson, B (eds) Comparative Youth Justice, London, Sage. 2008, print Lappi-Seppala, T. Finland: A model of tolerance? in Muncie. J and Goldson, B (eds) Comparative Youth Justice, London, Sage. 2006, http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/153/545 McAra, Coleman. ‘The cultural and institutional dynamics of transformation: youth justice in Scotland, England and Wales’ Cambrian Law Review, 2004, vol.35, pp.23-54. Mears, Demmianson. ‘Exploring state-level variation in juvenile incarceration rates’ The Prison Journal, 2006,vol.86, no.4 pp.470-490. Muncie, J. ‘Policy transfers and what works: Some reflections on comparative youth justice’ Youth Justice, 2002, vol.1, no.3 pp.27-35. Muncie, J. ‘The globalisation of crime control: the case of youth and juvenilejustice’, Theoretical Criminology, 2005, vol.9, no.1, 2005, pp.35–64. Muncie, J. and Goldson, B. ‘England and Wales: the New Correctionalism’ in Muncie. J and Goldson, B (eds) Comparative Youth Justice, London, Sage. 2006, print NACRO. Europe and the use of custody, Youth Crime Briefing, December, London, Nacro. 2002, http://yjj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/107.refs?patientinform-links=yes&legid=spyjj;8/2/107 NACRO. A Failure of Justice: Reducing Child Imprisonment, London, Nacro. 2003, http://yjj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/107.refs?patientinform-links=yes&legid=spyjj;8/2/107 National Assembly for Wales. Children and Young People: Rights to Action, Cardiff, Welsh Assembly. 2006, print. Nelken, Dennis. ‘Italian juvenile justice: tolerance, leniency and indulgence’, Youth Justice, 2006, vol. 6, no.2 pp107-128.25 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights. A Report by Mr Alvaro Gil- Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom, 2005, 4th-12thStrasbourg, Council of Europe, November 2004, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/WelcomePage.aspx Piacentini, Lamson and Walters. ‘The politicization of youth crime in Scotland and the rise of the ‘Burberry Court’’, Youth Justice, 2006, vol.6, no.1 pp43-60. Pitts, Rainay. and Kuula, Timothy. ‘Incarcerating young people: An Anglo-Finnish comparison’ Youth Justice, 2006, vol.5, no.3 pp147-164. Pratt, Haiwey., Brown, David., Brown, Marshall., Hallsworth, Stevenson., and Morrison, Wemberly. (eds) The New Punitiveness, Cullompton, Willan. 2005, print. Put, Jestopher and Walgrave, Lawler. ‘Belgium: From protection to accountability’ in Muncie. J and Goldson, B (eds) Comparative Youth Justice, London, Sage. 2006, print Rechea Alberola, Christopher and Fernandez Molina, Ellen. ‘Continuity and change in the Spanish juvenile justice system’ in Junger-Tas, J. and Decker, S. (eds) International Handbook of Juvenile Justice, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer. 2006, print. Snyder, Harry. ‘Juvenile crime and justice in the United States of America’ in Bala, N., Hornick, J.,Snyder, H. and Paetsch, J. (eds) Juvenile Justice Systems: An International Comparison of Problems and Solutions, Toronto, Thompson. 2002, print Stoorgaard, Amos. ‘Juvenile justice in Scandinavia’ Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 2004, vol.5, no.2 pp.188-204. Tham, Harold. ‘Law and order as a leftist project? The case of Sweden’ Punishment and Society, 2001, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 409-426. Tonry, Mass. ‘Symbol, substance and severity in western penal policies’ Punishment and Society, 2001, vol. 3, no. 4 pp.517-536.26 Uit Beijerse, James. and van Swaaningen, Robbert. ‘The Netherlands: Penal welfarism and risk management’ in Muncie. J and Goldson, B (eds) Comparative Youth Justice,London, Sage. 2006, print. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, 44th Session General Comment, 2007, No 10. CRC/C/GC/10., United Nations, Geneva. United Nations General Assembly. Report of the independent expert for the United Nations on Violence against Children, 2006, 61st Session, A/61/299, United Nations, Geneva. Van Dijk, Cumber, Nuytiens, Annethe. and Eliaerts, Charles. ‘The referral of juvenile offenders to the adult court in Belgium’ Howard Journal, 2005, vol.44, no.2 pp151-166. Van Swaaningen, Rubiri. ‘Public safety and the management of fear’ Theoretical Criminology, 2005, vol. 9 no.3 pp.289-305. Von Hofer, Hammonton. ‘Prison populations as political constructs: the case of Finland, Holland and Sweden’, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 2003, vol. 4, pp.21-38. Wacquant, Leakey. ‘How penal common sense comes to Europeans: notes on the transatlantic diffusion of the neo-liberal doxa’ European Societies , 2009, vol. 1 no.3 pp.319-352. Wacquant, Leakey. ‘Suitable enemies: Foreigners and immigrants in the prisons of Europe’. Punishment and Society, 2009, vol.1, no.2, pp.215-222. Walmsley, Ronald. World Prison Population List, Seventh edition, London, International Centre for Prison Studies. 2006, pp., 27, Print. Winterdyk, Joshua. (ed). Juvenile Justice Systems: International Perspectives, 2ndedition, Toronto, Canadian Scholars 2002, Press. Read More