Juvenile Crime and Justice - Literature review Example

Heading: Antisocial behaviour Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Introduction Anti-social behaviour is common among the young people in Australia and the genesis of many criminal activities that the country has faced. Anti-social behaviour is the breeding ground for criminal activities such as drug usage and even moral panics. The NSW has taken measures to combat the escalation of anti-social behaviour. This paper closely examines the interventions that have been established in NSW such as the Anti-Social Behaviour Pilot Project (ASBPP) and other strategic partnerships that works towards achieving a sustainable criminal detective system in vast areas of the NSW. It also examines the contributions of the Youth Conduct Orders (YCO) in the fight against anti-social behaviours. Major issues that can be raised about the intervention have also been analyzed in order to shade more light on the weaknesses and the strengths of the intervention with the aim of helping the stakeholders have a better understanding of the issue. A proposed strategic intervention which aims at addressing the primary cause of the anti-social behaviour is proposed at the end of the discussion. Interventions established in NSW to combat anti-social behaviour According to Osmond (2010, p.330) the NSW state plan prioritizes circumventing anti-social behaviour. NSW recognizes that such cases are on the decrease but asserts that the minority of the people are still causing disruption of the community trust and peace. In the year 2006, the Anti-Social Behaviour Pilot Project (ASBPP) was established in NSW with the purpose of analyzing and indentifying youth who are potential risk to themselves and the society (Brown 2004). It was also tasked with development and implementation of a management plan for the process. The approach also ensures that the human service and justice public authorities are exempted from privacy laws in order to ensure that the exchange of information about the risks of young people is intensified. This management of risk thus uses an intensive multi-agency management of risk in order to achieve its goals of mitigating any youth anti-social behaviour that breeds criminal activities (Millie 2008). This initiative is within the NSW Government Crime Prevention Framework mandated the task of developing a strategic approach targeting crime prevention among the youth. ASBPP and this framework create a strategic partnership of crime prevention which also includes other government agencies, the community and business groups (Crawford 2009). The Crime Prevention Steering Group is mandated the task of task of managing these partnerships. Crime Prevention Steering Group is a central government under the cabinet and the premier which seeks to manage the flow of activities for the agencies and authorities mandated the task of crime prevention among the youth (Department of Premier and Cabinet (2009). The partners are thus held accountable for availing potential crime targets. The operation of the ASBPP is in a nodal technique where it is communicates risks associated with anti-social behaviour within a region (Osmond 2010). The working groups managed by ASBPP forms a securitized network topology field which produces a new system of security that is interchangeable. The project thus produces a series of dense network of security in different zones forming a future-oriented framework seeking to achieve risk suppression (Crawford 2009). According to Martin (2011) on the other hand, the Youth Conduct Orders (YCO) has been established alongside the ASBPP under the Young Offender Act of 1997. The YCO objectives are to form a platform for dealing with youth that are charged and pleaded guilty of anti-social offences (Martin, 2011). It also seeks to address the fundamental problems that lead to anti-social behaviours and also provide a coordinated multi-agency approach to platform administration. The YCO will thus put some action and behavioural restrictions to the charged youth. This will therefore include doing certain tasks such as attending counselling sessions, seeking medical check-up, avoiding hanging out with certain people and avoiding certain places among other restraining actions. The age limit for such an individual ought to be 14 – 18 years, and must have been charged or accepted committing an offence within the New England Local Area (Simester, 2006). Major issues and concerns about the interventions According to Osmond (2010, p.336) one major issue that can be raised about the ASBPP is that it is confined to the rationalities and other government techniques that constitute surveillant and inter-assemblage. This strategy limits the analysis because it fails to consider the way in which ethnicity, race, class and gender intersect and thus over-exposing excessive controls of ASBPP. The core problems such as over-representation of aborigine’s youth and adults in prison has not been fully addressed despite the strategies put in place. This is a common problem facing Australia as a whole a factor that the strategies spearheaded by ASBPP have not been able to accomplish over the past few years (Roger 2008). The government approach implies that it does not understand the problems facing the modern day young people. Putting restraining policies that does not consider the well-being of the youth will probably not result in a lasting solution. The ASBPP and the YCO both fail to see the wider implication of marginalizing the youth and how their space is being taken by the mean approach of the policies instituted (Roger 2008). The other issue that is of concern about this intervention is the fact that it does not consider the root cause of the problem that leads to youth related crimes and other forms of anti-social behaviours (Roger 2008). It primarily detects and eliminates any possible criminal activity while not addressing or establishing the root cause of the problem. Other social and economical issues that lay a foundation to criminal activities are not considered in the process of eliminating criminal activities and other forms of antisocial behaviours (Simester 2006). Preventing a criminal activity cannot be successful if the primary reason for the crime happening is not addressed. The lack of good education, listening to the youth and the regulations only adds to the increase of anti-social behaviour (Millie 2008). According to Ramsay (2004) the YCO approach to restrain the youth from doing certain activity or behaving in certain ways for a period of time may yield certain positive fruits. The strategy will however not provide lasting solutions if the core issues affecting the youth are not addressed in an effective manner. The youth seem to have been forgotten in the process. Young people need more attention, sympathy and most of all understanding. If policies that closely integrate youth considerations through their voices are started, the approach could yield more fruits as opposed to the approaches taken by the ASBPP and the YCO (Millie 2008). The traditional concept of criminal justice is also threatened by the new measures because of the fact that the ASBPP and its partners work towards eliminating possible criminal activities a factor that provides new challenges to criminal justice (Simester 2006). Traditionally, such offenders would undergo a trial and then sentenced to prison if found guilty of any criminal activity. The ASBPP approach on the other hand shifts this approach through the use of detective mechanism that establishes possible criminal activities and act towards mitigating them (Simester 2006). The traditional juvenile process therefore has to change and incorporate these measures in order to align with the ASBPP approach. Alternative approaches for working with young people to reduce level of antisocial behaviour In order to clearly comprehend the cause of anti-social behaviour, research findings and theories that links social activities and other economic activities with criminal activities will be examined in order to provide a fundamental ground for the formation of a strategy that not only fights against crimes but rather addresses the root cause of the problem (Millie, 2008). According to Weatherburn (2004, pp.188-186) young people performance in school has a strong relationship with future criminal activities. In essence, the performance of the student through primary to college levels determines the possibility of the student getting involved in criminal activities. Students with good performance are likely to be involved in their career activities and thus not joining criminal gangs or other anti-social activities that increases juvenile crimes (Squires 2005). In Australia, minority groups such as the aborigines’ face poor performance in school and hence becoming frustrated in life a factor that leads them to join criminal gangs and other anti-social behavioural activities (Martin 2011). Australia in the past decades had full time jobs for youths of ages 16-19; this is no longer the case with the decline of job opportunities to these youth (Simester 2006). Currently, there are only few jobs which are part-time and pay poorly. Youths with good grades in school are likely to get jobs that above average while the reverse is true for poor performing youth and hence a recipe for juvenile crimes (Ramsay 2004). These factors that form the foundation for juvenile crimes are the basis of a strategic approach that will aim at mitigating anti-social behaviours among the young people. Improving the level of education and employment especially among the marginalized communities such as the aborigines will be the first step of dealing with the issue (Staats 2008). Interacting with the youth and making them feel loved and appreciated according to me is a more positive and strategic approach that will see a lasting solution to the problem (Osmond 2010). Some of these youth offenders or youth’s indulging in anti-social behaviours feels unappreciated. The modern social setting gives limited time for parents and other elderly people to socialize with the youth. Most of the time is spend in office work and other businesses and thus neglecting foundational upbringing of the young people and children (Brown 2004). The youth are losing their space as well as being marginalised by the society a factor that is contributing to escalation of the problem. Conclusion This discussion has pointed out measures that have been instituted in NSW to combat anti-social behaviours. Such strategies includes the 2006 establishment of Anti-Social Behaviour Pilot Project (ASBPP) which works with other strategic partners in ensuring that the security in the NSW and the Youth Conduct Orders (YCO) that restrain juvenile offenders from doing certain activities. The major issues raised concerning these interventions the lack of fundamental approach to addressing youth problems. The other issue raised is the lack of a primary cause detection system instead of a pure preventive system which fails to address the core issues. The third and the most important factor considered in this case is the strategic intervention that is proposed in order to address the root cause of anti-social behaviour through provision of quality education and job opportunities and also understanding and spending time with the young people in order to provide required positive upbringing. This strategy will be of essence in reducing criminal activities in the future. References Brown, B. (2004) ‘Anti-social behaviour, crime control and social control’, The Howard Journal, 43(2): 203-211. Crawford, A. (2009) ‘Governing through anti-social behaviour: Regulatory challenges to criminal justice’, British Journal of Criminology, 49: 810-831. Department of Premier and Cabinet (2009) Anti-social behaviour pilot project: Case co-ordination guidelines, Sydney: NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. Martin, G. (2011) ‘Tackling ‘anti-social behaviour’ in Britain and New South Wales: A preliminary comparative account, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22(3): in press. Millie, A. 2008. ‘Anti-social behaviour, behavioural expectations and an urban aesthetic’, British Journal of Criminology, 48: 379-394. Osmond, C. (2010) ‘Anti-social behaviour and its surveillant inter-assemblage’, Surveillance and Society, 7(3/4): 325-343, Special Issue on Surveillance and Childhood, eds. V. Steeves and O. Jones. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journal/article/view/nsw/nsw Ramsay, P. 2004. ‘What is anti-social behaviour?’ Criminal Law Review, November: 908-925. Roger, J. (2008) Criminalising social policy: Anti-social behaviour and welfare in a de-civilised society, Collumpton: Willan. Simester, A.P. and von Hirsch, A. (2006) ‘Regulating offensive conduct through two-step prohibitions’, In A. von Hirsch and A.P. Simester (eds), Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp 517-528. Squires, P. and Stephen, D. (2005) ‘Rethinking ASBOs’, Critical Social Policy, 25(4): 517-528. Staats, N. (2008) ‘Youth conduct orders: Anti social or anti youth?’ Undercurrent, 1: 41-43. Weatherburn, D.J. (2004) Law and order in Australia: rhetoric and reality, Federation press. Sydney. Pp.184-199. Read More