Regulation of Anti-social Behavior - Essay Example

Running Header: Regulation of Anti-social Behavior Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction Local communities and policy makers in the UK have brainstormed on interventions that will reduce or eliminate the prominent anti-social behavior among youths (Innes & Fielding, 2002). This behavior is being practiced by a lot of youths and young children at the same time in different parts of the UK and it is twirling out of control hence causing considerable harm to communities and also individuals at the receiving end of the behaviour. The British government responded to this growing concern by establishing the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit within communities with the task of using a policy to tackle this behaviour (Innes et al., 2002). The first intervention to anti-social behavior was effective enforcement of putting youths with anti-social behaviours on juvenile detention or behind prison bars. Deprived neighbourhoods are faced the most fearsome form of anti-social behaviour because people are fragile and services are overstretched. Irving (2002, p. 37) observed that anti-social behaviour causes communities to experience fear or anxiety because crime takes hold in the whole neighbourhood. Walsh (2008) suggested that disadvantaged youth lack of job opportunities, self-help programs, face racism on a daily basis and lack respect from the community. However, the youths are raising their concerns about their goals in life which is to be financially independent, lead meaningful lives and enjoy inclusion in the community to contribute in overall development. This has come as a surprise because local authorities, the community and British government instigate enforcement while the youths want a better life for the future in fulfilling jobs, stable families and good neighbours as compared to spending time behind prison bars. Defining Anti-social Behaviour Anti-social behaviour has different definitions and this is according to individuals, communities and government or local authorities. Individuals’ perception of anti-social behaviour is unacceptable behaviour while that of the community is behaviour that creates an environment of fear. According to the Crime and Disorder Act, anti-social behaviour is an action that causes alarm, harassment and distress to a person or people who are not of the same household as the perpetrator (Cutten, 2010 pp. 5). The British government lists the following actions as part of anti-social behaviors caused by disoriented youths: vandalism, graffiti painting, persistence abuse towards the disabled or the elderly, violence, intimidating behaviour and threats of violence. Same kind behaviour was seen in schools where children caused serious and persistence bullying. Another form of anti-social behaviour is persistence homophobia and racism. Some of the mentioned behaviours occurred due to alcohol and drug abuse (Cutten, 2010 pp. 6). Anti-social behaviour has underlying factors that should be tackled to eliminate this behaviour. Local authorities in the UK are forced to use their power to combat serious and persistent crime caused by anti-social behaviour. However, the utmost intervention in regulating anti-social behaviour is through preventive strategies that teach youths and children the virtues of good behaviour towards themselves through right education and available resources for everyone. Incompetent youths tend to exhibit aggressive behaviours that can be self destructive of cause harm to those people closer to the perpetrator. Disadvantaged groups such as the minority, non-English speakers and poor people are the ones who get affected either directly or indirectly by anti-social behaviour. Racism is rampant in the UK because of poor family values and people at the short end of the stick suffer greatly. Civil Sanction versus Criminal Sanction Civil sanction employs the use of welfare and employment service opportunities to handle underlying factors that cause anti-social behaviours among the youths in the UK. This form of sanction is meant to restore order in people’s lives by giving them a chance to make a difference in their lives. This means that they will be involved in training programs that will enable them to be competent and confidence in jobs and also connect socially through recreation activities. Civil sanctions are customized for each individual with anti-social behaviour so as to suit the needs, preference and culture of the individual. Criminal sanctions on the other hand foster deeper criminal activities because of the methods used to tackle anti-social behaviour. Prisons have been built in large numbers for adults who have anti-social behaviour caused by drug abuse, unemployment, race, poverty and dysfunctional families. Criminal sanctions isolate offenders from the entire community and instill discrimination and stigma associated with people who have ASB records. This sanction does not help an individual who has anti-social behaviour. Youths in the UK raise concerns on the way they are unable recover after serving prison time because employers, family members and neighbours lack respect, trust or dignity for them and the only place they know they fit in is in prison. This means that they will repeat the same anti-social behaviour due to lack of support and trust and end up in the same system that encourages anti-social behaviour by doing more harm than good for offenders. Net widening is when there are systems such as diversions, alternative sanctions, community and criminal sanctions do not focus on screening individuals out of the system but rather into different systems. Any system that does not help individuals cope with stressful situations about life, work and family by ensuring a recovery based care is widening the net. The more facilities created to help tackle or stop anti-social behaviour fosters the increase of people entering such programs than the people leaving them. When traditional criminal institutions and sanctions are increased, many people tend to participate in criminal behaviour because the underlying principles are not being solved. Prison located in isolated areas with high walls makes sure that offenders do not have a second chance into the good life of freedom of choice. Offenders in prison are kept under inhumane conditions that make them more aggressive because they are treated like animals in a cage. Contractual governance fostered by local authorities in regard to perpetrators of anti-social behaviour does not help the youth have successful lives. The police use forceful tactics to tackle anti-social behaviour because it is the only thing they believe will stop offenders from creative severe ASB. The community does not fully support people who have ASB or disadvantaged youth who need guidance. Challenges Facing Traditional Concepts Traditional forms of criminal sanctions are adverse and discriminating. In the past law governing crime committed by children led to juvenile detention while adults were incarcerated. The contemporary society has new forms of crime such as homicide, rape and racial profiling that treats teenagers and adults with the same form of legal punishment. High school children are killing their peers because of race, violent video games or difference in cultural background using unscrupulous methods ((Isal, 2006). These children are tried as adults in the court of law. The right to trial before going to jail was previously compulsory for offenders and it is still effective. Murders, rapists, racists and hooligans must face trial before they are taken to prison to serve their terms. Traditional criminal punishment caught suspects before finding an offender to stand trial. This is the same case with modern criminal justice system because suspects are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty with enough solid evidence of crime committed. Perpetrators who breach criminal laws by either escaping from prison or killing others while inside prison face lifetime sentences meaning that they will die in prison. The Internet is also a major cause of crime for child pornography and people are jailed as child offenders and they carry criminal records that state their crime. Examples of anti-social behaviour includes, noise nuisance, harassment, intimidation, aggressive behaviour and vandalism among others. This shows that ASB does not land in the same position as crime and this should not be tackled using criminal punishment systems because it creates criminals. Regulating ASB is through prevention methods and including the youth in decision making about their lives. Informed decision is when the youth have been provided with knowledge about self improvement training programs that lead to successful employment opportunities, relationships and friendships. Anti-social behaviour can be combated by listening to the concerns of youths who claim that resources are limited, skill and experience is lacking and support from neighbours is lacking because there are people who discriminate a group of youths who walk, play or have fun together. Criminal justice and state intervention should not be involved with ASB at any point because the state and local authority do more harm than good in the lives of the youths. Local authorities and the government prioritized enforcement at national level in an attempt to tackle anti-social behaviour (Walsh, 2008 pp. 161). However, at local level, residents from affected towns expressed concern about the jeopardy of such strategies. Local communities considered anti-social behaviour as a type of conflict in towns that had limited capacity of self guidance. They regarded offenders as young people from ten years old to twenty who had limited personal resources and also living in towns that offered limited education and job opportunities (Cutten, 2010 pp. 9). It was observed that Lancaster put up with the highest number of offenders from the age of ten to seventeen. West Lancashire and Preston are second place when it applies total number of individuals with anti-social behaviour (Home office, 2006 p. 20). Community Conferencing as an Intervention This strategy aims to bring individuals of the same community together to solve anti-social behaviour. The offender and the victim are brought together to analyze how the unruly behaviour has affected both parties (Johnson, 2004 pp. 36). This aims to restore community justice skills in tackling anti-social behaviour. This intervention also fosters mediation, parenting orders and also parenting contracts. Community conferencing will ensure that the voice of the youth is heard and discrimination and stigma eliminated before the situation gets out of hand. This form of intervention does not have disciplinary centers but programs that make sure ASB is not repeated (Jacobson et al., 2005). The young adults who engage in graffiti painting have a lot of talents that can be directed to a more meaningful course such as trade fares, art galleries and school talent shows in the intention of promoting art and talent in a proper way (Johnston & Mooney, 2007). This could also help these young adults and children earn money from selling their art collection. Programs that sponsor children’s activities in schools such as theatre, gym and social activities that build self esteem eliminate ABS (Henchely, 2009 pp. 3). Parenting skills are also fostered by engaging parents of perpetrators in productive discussions on the next step to take when creating a better future for their children (Jeffery, 2003). Conclusion Anti-social behaviour has underlying factors that should be tackled to eliminate this behaviour. The only way to get to the truth about ASB is talking to the youth who exhibit them. Criminal system is not appropriate for ASB because the disciplinary methods create more harm than good in the lives of children and young adults. Outcome based programs that foster training services, recreational activities and self-help programs that help people to be independent and lead meaningful lives. REFERENCES Cutten, A 2010, Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour Learning from experience. Swindon, Beaver House, pp. 1-19 Henchely, R, 2009, East Foundation Review. East Foundation Limited, Stratford, pp. 1-3 Home Office 2006, Young People and Crime: Findings from the 205 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey. Home Office Survey 2006. Innes, M. & Fielding, N 2002, From community to communicative policing: ‘Signal crimes’ and the problem of public reassurance’, Sociological Research Online, vol. 7, no. 2. Viewed on 17th May 2011 Innes, M., Fielding, N. & Langan, S. 2002, ‘Signal crimes and control signals: towards an evidence-based conceptual framework for reassurance policing. A report for Surrey Police’. Guildford: University of Surrey. Irving, B. 2002, ‘Fear of Crime: Theory, Measurement and Application’. London, Police Foundation, pp. 30-59. Ipsos, M 2005, ‘Public concern about ASB and support for ASBOs’. Viewed on 17th May 2011, from Ipsos, M. 2006, ‘Public attitudes to parenting.’ Viewed on 17th May 2011, from Isal, S. 2006, ‘Equal Respect: ASBOs and Race Equality’. London, Runnymede Trust, pp. 49-59. Jacobson, J., Millie, A. & Hough, M. 2005, Tackling Anti-social Behaviour: A Critical Review. London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research, King’s College London. Jacobson, J., Millie, A. and Hough, M. 2008, Why tackle anti-social behaviour?, in P. Squires (ed.), ASBO Nation: The Criminalisation of Nuisance. Bristol: Policy Press. Jeffery, C. R. 2003, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. London: Sage. Johnson, J. G., Smailes, E., Cohen, P., Kasen, S. & Brook, J. S. 2004, Anti-social parental behaviour, problematic parenting and aggressive offspring behaviour during adulthood: A 25-year longitudinal investigation, British Journal of Criminology, pp. 30–44. Johnston, C. & Mooney, G. 2007, ‘Problem’ people, ‘problem’ places? New Labour and council estates’, in R. Atkinson and G. Helms (eds), Securing an Urban Renaissance: Crime, Community and British Urban Policy. Bristol: Policy Press. Johnston, L. 2006, What is vigilantism? British Journal of Criminology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 220– 36. Walsh, T. 2008, ‘Policing disadvantage: Giving voice to those affected by the politics of law and disorder’, Alternative Law Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 160-164. Read More