Policy, Law and Practice of Youth Justice - Assignment Example

Youth Justice: Policy, Law and Practice Youth Justice: Policy, Law and Practice Q There are several criminological theories that can be appropriate in assessing reasons for the criminality committed by Dan and Ola. One of the theories is the psychological traits and crime theory (Cordella, and Siegel, 1996). According to the theory, the personality traits of an individual do play a significant role in the day-to-day decision-making. Looking at the criminal population, certain personality traits such as short attention spans, conduct disorders, depression, and anxiety have been identified. The features tend to make people susceptible to vices such as; promiscuity, substance abuse, sociopath, and violence (Cote, 2002). In the criminality action, Dan can be seen to be having a sociopathic personality. He seems to be a sociopath because he is seen to be a dangerous boy, who is aggressive and is not sorry for his actions (Tibbett, 2012). In addition, he is not deterred by punishments and does not earn from past mistakes, since he has a caution and a warning plus for two offences of shoplifting committed in 2013. He also received a three months order for possession of cannabis that he successfully completed at his local Youth Offending Service. The other theory is the learning theory. In the theory, individuals learn deviant behavior and values from friends and family (Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox, 2014). In the crime committed by the two boys, it is clear that Ola has no previous criminal record and on that day, he was going to school but was disrupted by Dan. He was then influenced by Dan to engage in the crime by pushing Mr. Smith and running away with his wallet. According Cullen and Wilcox, criminal behavior is learned because of associations with others (Cullen, and Wilcox, 2013). The other theory is the social disorganization theory. According to the theory, many researchers link criminality to the social conditions present in redundant neighborhoods (Moyer, 2001). They believe that issues such as general familial and social deterioration, urban decay and general deterioration of the ecology of inner cities are the major reasons for an increase in crime rates. Theorists think that inadequate educational opportunities experience these areas, single parenthood, or existence of only one responsible parent (Winfree, and Abadinsky, 2010). In addition, healthcare and housing are insufficient thus leading to criminality. For example, the father of Dan is a habitual criminal and so he is not a responsible parent. In addition, his family seems to be disorganized since there are no boundaries in the house. Both parents are irresponsible, and Dan appears to come and go as he pleases and stays out very late in most evenings (Henry, and Einstadter, 2006). The other theory to consider is the particular deterrence theory. In the theory, the penalties for the criminal acts should be severe to refrain them from repeating the action (Mclaughlin, and Newburn, 2010). For example, since Ola was arrested for the first time he should be sentenced to spend 60 days in a boot camp meant specifically for first-time offenders. The penalty was expected to persuade Ola that the cost of subjecting Mr. Smith to harsh punishment was unworthy excitement of utilizing money obtained from a wallet that has been stolen (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball, 2011). Q 2). The youth justice philosophies, when applied in the case, will produce different outcomes. In the current years, thehe government has set up the youth justice policy which is based on the restorative justice philosophy as a punitive sanctions alternative (Bell, and Bell, 2011). The purpose of the youth justice theory of restorative justice was to encourage the offenders to have an understanding of the consequences of their behavior, amending them and becoming law-abiding in the community. They were not meant to deter them through punishment or to incarcerate them (Kalmthout, Roos, Groenhuijsen, and Kooijmans, 2010). If the youth justice philosophy of restorative justice is in the case, it might produce an adverse outcome. The reason is that restorative justice theory is with censoring past criminal behavior which is evident in Dan and not in Ola. Therefore, it will have an impact on Dan, thus excluding Ola (Shoemaker, 1996). Also, the instead of the philosophy preventing the reoffending of behavior, the offenders will eventually receive blame that does not happen in the formal justice processes (Dammer, and Albanese, 2014). The welfare philosophy was to separate the child offender simply from their adult counterpart offenders to ensure that they are not contaminated and even become more glued to the criminality. If the welfare philosophy were to be in the case then, it would lead increase in crime rates among the youth. The reason is that it seems to condone other than to punish the juvenile delinquency (Council of Europe. 2009). Q 3). Based on the police criminal evidence Act of 1948 the two boys are arrested and handed over to the law enforcement agencies, then the below steps should be followed. The custody officer should ascertain the identity of a guardian, parent, local authority care or any other person who has responsibility for taking care of the juvenile (Zander, 2006). After he/she has ascertained the identity of the parents, the next thing is to inform them of the arrest. The boys have a right not to be coerced to embed a document written under caution. Also, be called upon to sign a record of interview without the presence of a parent or guardian (Ozin, Norton, and Spivey, 2010). However, the superintendent may authorize a meeting without the presence of the parent (Keogh, 2007). He can permit under the following conditions; If he is satisfied that the meeting would not harm the boys mental or physical state (Great Britain, 2013). If he thinks that, the delay will interfere with the evidence linked to the offence or hinder the recovery of the wallet obtained in consequence of the commission of the infringement (Great Britain, 2013). Q 4). The act also provides guidelines on prosecuting juveniles. Where the following conditions about the boys are satisfied, the police officer may go on by way of reprimand or final warning; The constable has enough evidence that the two boys have committed an offence (Jackson, and Spencer, 1995). Based on the view of a constable regarding the evidence that was retrieved, if the two boys were convicted and sentenced for stealing from Mr. Smith a proper prospect among the boys may be executed (Carr, and Williams, 1994). The two boys admit to the constable that they committed a crime (Allen, 1996). · The offenders have never been previously convicted of an offence (Effros, 1998). If the constable is satisfied, that it is not in the public interest that the two boys are to be prosecuted (Archbold, Richardson, Thomas, and 2005). The police officer can give the boys a reprimand or a final warning. Usually, when a person receives a reprimand he cannot be a second one (Lynch, 2008). The individual may also be given a final warning without being given a reprimand if the magnitude of the offence committed requires that (Ewing, 2010). A person may also be given a second final warning if the crime is discovered to have been committed more than two years after the previous notification date (Zander, 2006). The right of the boys in the act is that the reprimand or final warning should be in the presence of their parents. Here a police officer gives one last warning by reoffering the offenders to local youth offending team who are supposed to arrange for them rehabilitation program (Allen, 1996). If they are formal of a crime, they will make the first appearance in the Youth Court. The boys have a general right to bail. The court may also decide to refuse bail for the protection and welfare of the boys. The parents of the boys will be required to act as a surety for the boys’ attendance at the court. Where the boys are a bail, they will have to be remanded to the local authority accommodation. Since both, the boys are over ten years old they will be remanded to secure accommodation (Bevan, and Lidstone, 1991). Q 5). If the two boys plead to be guilty then individual sentences have to be given by the court judge. Firstly because the boys are under the age of 21 they cannot be sentenced to prison for any reason (Palmer and Mary1996). However, they may be remanded in custody in jail for punishment or trial. In addition, no custodial sentence may be passed o the boys if they were not legally represented at least at some point after they were found guilty or before sentence (Premolar, and Ransley, 2002). In addition, the penalty term should not in any case exceed the maximum time an adult could be for committing the same offence (Halsbury, 2008). In the case of Dan, he is supposed to be sentenced to custody since he is a dangerous repeat offender. He has a history that shows a record of evidence of guilt Dan should also be given an intensive support and supervision order. The purpose of the sentence is to provide more support and closer monitoring than an order of probation to change his behavior (Gibson, 2008). Ola should be an attendance order. The sentence will require him to attend an individual program at a particular time and under the conditions set by the judge (Carlile, 2007).The law will target specific times and days when he is likely to fall into the trap of peer pressure. The court can also give Dan a differed custody and supervision order (Great Britain, 2007).The sentence will allow him to serve the sentence n the community under conditions instead of being sentenced to custody (Sharpe, 2000). If he violates the conditions then, he will have no otherwise, but to be sent to custody (Murray, Hill, and Mcgunffi, 1997). Q 6). Various risk factors among the defendants have been reported to lead to re-offending behavior. The factors can be either static or dynamic (Delisi, and Conis, 2013). For example, Dan whose parents are seen to be irresponsible, the parents can be found guilty of a non-monitoring offence (Champion, 1994). The other risk is no academic qualifications and being expelled or a regular truant from school since it is evident from his educational background that he was excluded from secondary school when he was 14 years old. He then attended a local Referral Pupil Referral Unit, but he truanted on a regular basis. He finally left with no qualifications and was currently looking for a job (Koenraadt, Moojd, and Mulbregt, 2007). The other risk factor for him is having no employment in the year prior to sentence, as it is that he is currently looking for a job. The other risk is using drugs prior to custody since in his criminal record he received a three months order for possession of cannabis (Weiner, and Otto, 2013). The other risk is that his father is a habitual criminal and therefore he cannot be a role model to help him change his behavior (Davies, and Beech, 2012). The risk factors that Ola can face are; poor self-control to peer pressure as it is evident that on his way to school he stopped to talk to Dan who lives next door. Dan persuaded him not to go to school but to sag off and have some fun, and that is when the robbery took place (Greene, and Heilbrun, 2011). The other risk he is likely to face is the age of first sentencing since he is at the tender age. This can and that can lead to re-offending as he might mistake that for being a hero (Gray, Midgley, and Webb, 2012). The other risk has an anti-social associate since his neighbor Dan has a history of anti-social behavior (Eastman, 2012). Q 7). The period of criminal responsibility is ten years (Molan, 2001). The reason it is ten years is that under such an age all children are considered doli Inc Apax. Meaning that they are not capable of committing a crime (Dine, Gobert, and Wilson, 2010). However, after reaching the age of ten, there is nothing under the substantive law of criminality that distinguishes the responsibility of adults among young people regarding the attribution of guilt. (Macdonald, Ashworth, and Emmerson, 2012).The other justification according to Deborah Orr is that if a child behaves in a manner that he or she feels it was beyond her control. Then he is told that the behavior is a criminal offence then, the kid is being taught that his or her actions cannot be controlled. The idea assisted n the reduction of the number of children being labelled until the age was set (Reid, and Visser, 2013). Before the criminality age of responsibility was established, prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubts. They had to prove that the young stars had done an illegal and unacceptable thing (Wai-kin, 2011). The government also saw that there was no need to pull children into the criminal justice system and criminalize them (Monaghan, 2012). A civil route should be which is based on the foundations of welfare and protection. Also, if a kid below ten years of age was to be for something he or she is not aware is wrong. It will be like an employer paying an employee to go through an individual process which he is sure it cannot work (Seetahal, 2001). Reference List Archbold, J. F., Richardson, P. J., Thomas, D. A., and Bowes, M. (2005). Archbold: criminal pleading, evidence and practice. London, Sweet & Maxwell. Allen, R. (1996). Children and crime: taking responsibility. London, Institute for Public Policy Research. Allen, C. (1996). Sourcebook on evidence. London, Cavendish. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=220300. Bell, S. J., and Bell, S. J. (2011). Young offenders and youth justice: a century after the fact. Toronto, Nelson Education. Bevan, V., and Lidstone, K. (1991). The investigation of crime: a guide to police powers. London [u.a.], Butterworth Carlile, A. (2007). Report on proposed measures for inclusion in a Counter Terrorism Bill. London, TSO. Carr, I., and Williams, K. S. (1994). Computers and law. Oxford, England, Intellect Books. Champion, D. J. (1994). Measuring offender risk: a criminal justice sourcebook. Westport, Conn, Greenwood Press. Cote, S. (2002). Criminological theories: bridging the past to the future. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Cordella, P., and Siegel, L. J. (1996). Readings in contemporary criminological theory. Boston, North-eastern University Press. Council of Europe. (2009). European rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing. Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., and Wilcox, P. (2014). Criminological theory: past to present, essential readings. Cullen, F. T. and Wilcox, P. (2013). The Oxford handbook of criminological theory. New York, NY, Oxford University Press Dammer, H. R., and Albanese, J. S. (2014). Comparative criminal justice systems. Davies, G., and Beech, A. R. (2012). Forensic psychology: crime, justice, law, interventions. Chichester, West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons. Delisi, M., and Conis, P. J. (2013). American corrections: theory, research, policy, and practice. Burlington, Mass, Jones & Bartlett Learning. Dine, J., Gobert, J. J., and Wilson, W. (2010). Cases and materials on criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Eastman, N. (2012). Forensic psychiatry. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Effros, R. C. (1998). Current legal issues affecting central banks. Volume 5 Volume 5. Washington, D.C., International Monetary Fund. . Ewing, K. D. (2010). Bonfire of the liberties: New Labour, human rights, and the rule of law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Great Britain. (2007). The Governments counter-terrorism proposals: first report of Session 2007-08. London, TSO. Gibson, B. (2008). The new Ministry of Justice an introduction. Hook, Waterside. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10696115. Great Britain. (2013). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Code C: revised code of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers. Great Britain. (2013). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Code B: revised code of practice for searches of premises by police officers and the seizure of property found by police officers on persons or premises.. Gray, M., Midgley, J., and Webb, S. A. (2012). The Sage handbook of social work. Los Angeles, Sage. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10682745. Greene, E., and Heilbrun, K. (2011). Wrights man’s psychology and the legal system. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Halsbury, H. S. G. (2008). Halsburys statutes of England and Wales Vol. 12, 1 Vol. 12, 1. London [u.a.], LexisNexis. Henry, S., and Einstadter, W. J. (2006). Criminological theory. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield publishers, Inc. Jackson, R. M., and Spencer, J. R. (1995). Jacksons machinery of justice. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. Kalmthout, A. M. V., Roos, T. D., Groenhuijsen, M. S., and Kooijmans, T. (2010). Fervet opus: liber amicorum--Anton van Kalmthout. Apeldoorn, The Netherlands, Maklu. Keogh, A. (2007). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: as amended: act as of 9 November 2007. S.l, Crime Line Publishing. Koenraadt, F., Mooij, A., and Mulbregt, J. V. (2007). The mental condition in criminal law: forensic mental health assessment in a residential setting. Amsterdam, Dutch University Press. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., and Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory: context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage Publications. Lynch, M. (2008). Truth machine the contentious history of DNA fingerprinting. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. . Macdonald, A., Ashworth, A., and Emerson, B. (2012). Human rights and criminal justice. London, Sweet & Maxwell. Mclaughlin, E., and Newburn, T. (2010). The SAGE handbook of criminological theory. Los Angeles, Sage. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=743588. Monaghan, N. (2012). Criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Molan, M. T. (2001). Sourcebook on criminal law. London, Cavendish. Moyer, I. L. (2001). Criminological theories: traditional and non-traditional voices and themes. Thousand Oaks, Calif [u.a.], Sage Publications. Murray, R. M., Hill, P. D., and Mcgunffi, P. (1997). The essentials of postgraduate psychiatry. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ozin, P., Norton, H. and Spivey, P. (2010). PACE: a practical guide to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Palmer, C., and Hart Mary. (1996). A Pace in the right direction? The effectiveness of safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ... A South Yorkshire study. Sheffield, U.K., Institute for the Study of the Legal Profession. Prenzler, T., and Ransley, J. (2002). Police reform: building integrity. Annandale, NSW, Hawkins Press. Reid, E., and Visser, D. P. (2013). Private law and human rights: bringing rights home in Scotland and South Africa. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Seetahal, D. S. (2001). Commonwealth Caribbean criminal practice and procedure. London, Cavendish. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=220277. Sharpe, S. (2000). Search and surveillance: the movement from evidence to information. Aldershot [u.a.], Ashgate/Dartmouth. Shoemaker, D. J. (1996). International handbook on juvenile justice. Westport, Conn, Greenwood Press. Tibbetts, S. G. (2012). Criminological theory: the essentials. Los Angeles, Sage. Wai-kin, H. (2011). Criminal law in Hong Kong. Alphen and de Rijn, Kluwer Law International. Weiner, I. B., and Otto, R. K. (2013). Handbook of psychology, forensic psychology. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley. http://rbdigital.oneclickdigital.com. Winfree, L. T. and Abadinsky, H. (2010). Understanding crime: essentials of criminological theory. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Zander, M. (2006). The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Suppl. 1 Suppl. 1. London, Zander, M. (2006). The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. London, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell. Sweet & Maxwell. Read More