The Public Perceptions of Youth Crime and Young Offenders - Research Paper Example

The Public Perceptions of Youth Crime and Young Offenders Student Name Course Tutor Date Table of Contents Introduction 3 The difference between young offenders and adult offenders 4 Various countries have in the past been treating children the same as adults in criminal justice processes. Children and adults could be subjected to similar penalties such as hard labor, capital and corporal punishment. However, today majority of legal systems in the world have a separate legal system for children that acknowledge their immaturity and inexperience. The juvenile system now deals with children in a less harsh manner that the adults. The offending rate has however been so high for young people compared to adults. The majority of the crimes are however committed at around 17 years when they are at the peak of the adolescence. When they become adults, most of them outgrow crime and this could be the reason for low rates among the adults. The majority of the offenses perpetrated by young people are those against property such as theft, unlawful entry with intent, and deception while those perpetrated by adults are those against other persons such as sexual assault, robbery with violence and offences related to illicit drugs (Cunneen & White 2007). 4 The nature of offending by young people also differs from that of adults due to various factors. One of the factors that make it different is the risk taking behavior of young people and peer influence. A research by Steinberg (2005) indicated that there is rapid change in the second decade of brain development, and this is characterized by response inhibition, regulations of emotions and calibration of risks and rewards. Steinberg (2005) associates this with a disjunction between the experience of the adolescent and their ability to regulate motivation and arousal, and the tendency of adolescents to overestimate risks to themselves. Another factor is intellectual disabilities and mental illnesses. According to a study by Frize, Kenny and Lennings (2008) in Australia, 17 percent of young people who were detained had an IQ below 70. Cases of mental illnesses have also been found to be, any among the detained juveniles. According to a survey on young people who were held in police custody carried out in 2005 in New South Wales, 88 percent of the detained young people were found with symptoms of psychiatric disorder ranging from mild, moderate to severe cases. 5 The third factor is the likeliness of young people to be victims of crime. Young people have higher chances of being victims of assault compared to other groups. They are also likely to be victims of crimes committed by their peers. For example, between 1990 and 2008, almost a third of homicide victims comprised of 15 and 17 year - olds who had been killed by other juveniles (AIC 2008). 6 Public Perceptions Regarding Youth Crime and Young Offenders 6 Factors contributing to the public misconception about youth crime and young offenders 7 Media influence 7 Personal characteristics of the members of public 8 Handling of the young people and youth crime 9 Public perceptions on the causes of increase youth crime and young offenders 10 Possible consequences of False Public Perceptions regarding youth crime and young offenders 11 Research gaps 12 The conclusion 12 List of references 14 Public Safety Canada 2014, A Statistical Snapshot of Youth at Risk and Youth Offending in Canada, retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ststclsnpsht-yth/index-eng.aspx 14 Hough, M & Roberts, J, 2004, Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales, Bristol: Policy Press. 15 Introduction A young offender is defined as a young person who in many countries and states is legally treated differently from the adult criminals and is usually tried in a special youth court. Crime by the young offenders is dealt with under the juvenile justice system (Richards 2009). In various countries, the age at which criminal responsibility starts is ten years. The juvenile justice system therefore deals with young people between the age of 10 and 18 years (Liverani 2011). According to Australia’s Young Offenders Act 1997, an adult is defined as a person over the age of 18 years while a child is a person who is between 10 and 18 years. The Young Offenders Act 1997, however applies to a person is or was a child by the time the offence covered in the Act was committed and also a person under the age of 21 years if being dealt with under the Act (Young Offenders Act 1997, section 7A). In other countries such as Canada, their Youth Criminal Justice Act applies to those aged between 12 and 18 years (Youth Criminal Justice Act 2002). The Juvenile justice system consist of a set of rules, institutions, and the people in charge of controlling, punishing and rehabilitating those aged between 12 and 18 years who are crime suspects especially where they fall as the offenders. In Australia, juvenile justice system is usually a function of the state governments which is guided by state legislation and consists of state departments and functions (Richards 2009). Statistics in countries such as Canada and Australia indicate that young people are decreasingly getting involved in crime (Chaplin, Flatley & Smith 2011, and Public Safety Canada 2014). However, members of the public still believe that crime rates among the young people are still high and increasing. This essay looks at various perceptions by members of the public regarding crime by the youth and young offenders. The difference between young offenders and adult offenders Various countries have in the past been treating children the same as adults in criminal justice processes. Children and adults could be subjected to similar penalties such as hard labor, capital and corporal punishment. However, today majority of legal systems in the world have a separate legal system for children that acknowledge their immaturity and inexperience. The juvenile system now deals with children in a less harsh manner that the adults. The offending rate has however been so high for young people compared to adults. The majority of the crimes are however committed at around 17 years when they are at the peak of the adolescence. When they become adults, most of them outgrow crime and this could be the reason for low rates among the adults. The majority of the offenses perpetrated by young people are those against property such as theft, unlawful entry with intent, and deception while those perpetrated by adults are those against other persons such as sexual assault, robbery with violence and offences related to illicit drugs (Cunneen & White 2007). The nature of offending by young people also differs from that of adults due to various factors. One of the factors that make it different is the risk taking behavior of young people and peer influence. A research by Steinberg (2005) indicated that there is rapid change in the second decade of brain development, and this is characterized by response inhibition, regulations of emotions and calibration of risks and rewards. Steinberg (2005) associates this with a disjunction between the experience of the adolescent and their ability to regulate motivation and arousal, and the tendency of adolescents to overestimate risks to themselves. Another factor is intellectual disabilities and mental illnesses. According to a study by Frize, Kenny and Lennings (2008) in Australia, 17 percent of young people who were detained had an IQ below 70. Cases of mental illnesses have also been found to be, any among the detained juveniles. According to a survey on young people who were held in police custody carried out in 2005 in New South Wales, 88 percent of the detained young people were found with symptoms of psychiatric disorder ranging from mild, moderate to severe cases. The third factor is the likeliness of young people to be victims of crime. Young people have higher chances of being victims of assault compared to other groups. They are also likely to be victims of crimes committed by their peers. For example, between 1990 and 2008, almost a third of homicide victims comprised of 15 and 17 year - olds who had been killed by other juveniles (AIC 2008). Public Perceptions Regarding Youth Crime and Young Offenders The few studies that have been conducted regarding how members of the public perceive the youth’s involvement in crime have identified that the members of the public have overestimated the magnitude of the youth crime, and that of young offenders. The public believe that crime by young is increasing at a very high rate and is unmanageable, and that the crimes being committed by young people are too serious. Some of the studies that have been done include: The British crime survey conducted in 2006/07 indicated a general public perception of increasing rates of crime among the young people. This was unlike indications from the official records which indicated low rates of youth crime (Ministry of Justice 2007). A study by Hough and Roberts (2004) also identified that most of the respondents overestimate the contribution of young people to overall offending behavior. A study by Mattinson & Mirrlees-Black (2000) found out that most people assumed that young people were responsible for most of the crimes. Study by Ipsos MORI (2006a) also indicated a tendency by the members of the public to overestimate the extent of young people’s involvement in violence acts. The respondents stated that almost half of crimes by youths involved violence. This was contrary to the crime records which indicated that it is only one fifth of the crimes that involved violence. However, the perceptions of the members of the public are not based on personal experience. According to findings by Anderson et al. (2005), among those interviewed, those who have had actual experiences with youth in crime incidences were lower that how they portrayed the extent of youth related crimes in their area. This indicated the existence of some external factors that shaped public perceptions on the youth crime, such as the media reports. Studies in the United States and Canada also indicate similar perceptions that the general crime rate is increasing despite police statistical records which indicate that they are not (John Howard society of Alberta, 1998). Tyler and Boeckmann (1997) explain of two theories that explain how the members of the public form perceptions regarding crimes are formed. These are instrumental theory and expressive theory. The instrumental theory states that perceptions regarding crime results from personal experiences or cases where an individual has been victimized criminally. Expressive theory perceptions may be as a result of general social concerns regarding crime as defined by culture, social change and relations and also the existence of conditions that are favorable to crime, which in real sense may not be dependent on crime (Jackson 2004). Factors contributing to the public misconception about youth crime and young offenders Media influence The media is highly to blame for the perceptions that have been formed regarding the youth’s engagement in crime. The media has misinformed the members of the public about youth crime. In a survey by Hough and Roberts (2004), the public believed that the number of young offenders is still increasing despite the trends showing that overall crime rates are decreasing. Almost two-thirds of those interviewed stated that they got this information from the media. The study also found that when the media is reporting crimes by the young people, more focus is put on the most violent and the most sensational crimes which make just a small proportion of youth crimes and are not the main representative of the crimes committed by the youth. A report on annual youth offending statistics released for 2006/07 by the Youth Justice Board indicated that the number of serious offences that had been committed by the young people as well as those committed on them has created the perception that the members of public have regarding the youth crime. Similar reports are contained in other countries regarding role the of media in misinforming about youth crime (Ipsos MORI 2006). For example, a study in Toronto, Sprott (1996) found out that in three newspapers, 94 percent of stories regarding youth crime mentioned violent offences. Whereas in the real sense, it is only less that 25 percent of cases in Ontario youth courts mention violence. Media has also been report to ignore violent crimes committed by adults focusing more on those committed by the young people whereas those by adults are more frequent. This has created an impression that there is a chronic problem regarding youth crime (McKeen & McConnell, 1994). This has been worsened by the prohibition by Canada’s Young Offenders Act on publicizing the identity of young offenders. Personal characteristics of the members of public Research has shown that some of the perceptions regarding youth crime are due to the individual and the general characteristics of the members of the public. Looking at perceptions to crime in general, the British Crime Survey carried out in 2006/07 found out that people’s perceptions as well as experiences with crime differ according to their socio-demographic characteristics and also their attitudes. A trend on perceptions was observed across gender, age, location and level of knowledge. For example, a study by Lovbakke and Moley (2007) indicated that the perceptions that the crime rate is on increase are more prevalent among women compared with men. Regarding the age, the study found that those at the advanced age perceived that the rates of criminal activities had gone up generally despite the fact that the younger people were expected to have more worry over crime rates such as those related to violence and vehicle theft. Another study by Anderson et al. (2005) looking at the influence of location on perception on crime found out that most of those living in rented houses believed that the rate of crime of increasing while those living in owner occupier houses believed that it was not. Regarding the level of knowledge of the respondents and what they understand about the lives and affairs of the young people, Anderson et al. (2005) found out that those adults who do not have much contact with the youth and therefore do not have much understanding of them are more likely to have negative perceptions of them especially regarding their involvement in crime. Handling of the young people and youth crime The manner in which the legislature and criminal justice agencies approach matters relating to youth crimes has also shaped people’s perceptions. Youth trends and issues that had been appearing normal social issues have been criminalized and portrayed as a threat to the society. For example, school drop-out which was an educational welfare issue is being viewed as a threat to the society and also an act that is exposing the young people’s lives into a risk (Ennals, 2003). Anti-social behaviors that were associated with the adolescent’s immaturity have been labeled problematic and leading to crimes. For example, in a study by Jacobson & Kirby (2012) on public attitudes to youth crime, some of the respondents stated that young people are walking in loud crowds and they don’t give way on the pavements and this is very intimidating. That is a characteristic of immaturity or some of the anti- social behaviors associated with adolescents. However, they are being seen as problematic and with a potential of resulting in crime (Waiton, 2001). The Anti Social Behavior Orders, which is a civil order applied on those who show engagement in anti social behavior has also criminalized a lot of activities and habits of the young people. The order has created a wide range of activities that it labels as crime, some of which are the usual anti- social behaviors of the young people. This has resulted in criminalizing of so many young people therefore supporting the public perceptions that young offenders are on increase (Nicholas, Kershaw & Walker 2007). Public perceptions on the causes of increase youth crime and young offenders As members of the public perceive that the crime rate among the young people is increasing, they also have their own perceptions regarding the reasons for its increase. In a study carried by (Jacobson & Kirby 2012), respondents gave various reasons which they perceive as the causes of increase in youth crime. One of the reasons mentioned by the majority of the respondents is the failure of the schools, the parents and the society to discipline young people. Some of the respondents explained that the parents have failed to take care of their children and to offer them guidance. This therefore has made the children to lack discipline as they grow. One of the respondents stated that if one is brought up in the right manner with honesty, gentleness, kindness and thoughtfulness, the person can never end up in courts. The respondents explained that some people go through hell during their upbringing, and they were never taught kind words such as please and thank you. The respondents also pointed fingers at the schools stating that the schools do not discipline children with some stating that they would prefer if corporal punishment can be restored in schools. This support for reinstatement of corporal punishment was also evidenced in a study by Stewart (2011) where almost half of the respondents supported the idea of corporal punishment due to increased bad behavior in schools. The criminal justice system was perceived to contribute. In a study by Hough and Roberts (2004), a number of participants alleged that justice was not being delivered and administered in the appropriate manner. Some respondents stated that young people do not fear the police, the courts do just little to the young offenders and that the prisons are also too soft on young offenders. 2010/11 British Crime Survey also reported that some people feel that young offenders are dealt with in a very lenient manner by the police and the courts (Chaplin, Flatley & Smith 2011). Possible consequences of False Public Perceptions regarding youth crime and young offenders Due to the much negative publicity that young people have received regarding their involvement in crime, interventions to restore public trust are important. This is because the continued perceptions may have negative impacts such as the courts becoming more punitive with young people due to pressure from the members of the public on their perceived leniency with the young offenders. Law makers may also be forced to make unnecessary changes to the laws dealing with young offenders. For example in 2002, the Young Offenders Act in Canada was amended by the federal government to include custodian disposition from 5 to 10 years, and also moving of cases for those aged 16 and 17 years to adult courts if the person is found to have committed a serious crime. Generally, these misconceptions can manipulate all the alleged failures such as schools and criminal justice system to come up with tough measures that can make lives of young people unbearable (Ipsos MORI 2008). Research gaps Further research needs to be done, particularly addressing the young people asking them to cite their experiences with the members of the public and the various incidences where they have been falsely labeled as criminals. This can also bring into a clear picture some of other factors contributing to the misconceptions that the public has regarding their involvement in crime. The conclusion The public perceptions that exist regarding youth crime need to be changed to ensure that there is no anxiety when young people are relating with the older people. This can be done by creating awareness on the current trends of youth crime. It is also very necessary for the criminal justice system to make the public any new findings and existing records of youth crime so that the members of the public can change their perceptions and the attitude they have towards young people. The media also need to change focus on youth crime and take time to report positive things about the youth. They should also recognize that the youth are not only offenders but also victims of crime. This can make society take up the role of protecting them rather than condemning them. Young people can also change public perceptions by becoming more involved in positive activities in the society. This will help them restore the lost trust among members of the public. Basically, the truth needs to be told regarding changing trends of youth crime and the public also need to find out from the relevant sources other than so much reliance on media reports. List of references Richards, K., 2009, Juveniles’ contact with the criminal justice system in Australia, Monitoring Report No. 7, Australian Institute of Criminology. Liverani, M., 2011, "Juveniles v The State: A new direction for class action" Law Society Journal 49 (11), 24-25 Young Offenders Act 1997. The Youth Criminal Justice Act 2002. John Howard society of Alberta, 1998, Youth crime in Canada: public perception vs. Statistical information, retrieved from www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C16.htm Chaplin, R., Flatley, J & Smith, K 2011, Crime in England and Wales 2010/11: Crime in England and Wales 2010/11, Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime. London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin. Public Safety Canada 2014, A Statistical Snapshot of Youth at Risk and Youth Offending in Canada, retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ststclsnpsht-yth/index-eng.aspx Cunneen C & White R 2007, Juvenile justice: Youth and crime in Australia, 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press Steinberg L 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(2): 69–74 Frize M, Kenny D & Lennings C 2008, The relationship between intellectual disability, Indigenous status and risk of reoffending in juvenile offenders on community orders. The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52(6): 510–519. Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) 2008, Australian crime: Facts & figures 2007. Canberra: AIC. Nicholas, S., Kershaw, C & Walker, A 2007, Crime in England and Wales 2006/07, London: Home office. Hough, M & Roberts, J, 2004, Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales, Bristol: Policy Press. Ministry of Justice (2007).Criminal Statistics 2006: England and Wales. London: the Ministry of Justice Jacobson J, & Kirby, A, 2012, Public attitudes to youth crime: Report on focus group research, London: Home office. Stewart, W, 2011, “Parents dust down the cane,” Times Education Supplement, 16 September 2011. Accessed from http://www.west-info.eu/uk-michael-gove-corporal-punishment/survey-yougov-tes-parents-dust-down-the-cane/ Chaplin, R., Flatley, J. and Smith, K, 2011, Crime in England and Wales 2010/11: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime. London: The Home Office Statistical Bulletin. Ipsos MORI, 2008, Closing the gaps: Crime and public Perceptions, London: Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. Ennals, P 2003, “We are not criminals,” Community Care 1493, 40-41. Waiton, S 2001, Scared of the Kids? Curfews, Crime and the regulation of Young People, Leicester: Perpetuity Press. Ipsos MORI 2006a, Attitudes towards teenagers and crime, London: Ipsos Mori. Anderson, S., Bromley, C & Given, L 2005, Public attitudes towards young people and youth crime in Scotland: Findings from the 2004 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive. Ipsos MORI, 2006, ‘Youth crime, politics and the media.’ In: Understanding Crime and Justice, London: Ipsos MORI. Mattinson,J & Mirrlees-Black, C 2000, Attitudes to Crime and Criminal Justice: findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey (Research Findings No. 111). London: The Home Office. Tyler T & Boeckmann R 1997, Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers, Law and Society Review 31: 237–265. Jackson J 2004, Experience and expression: Social and cultural significant in the fear of crime, The British Journal of Criminology 44(6): 946–966 Sprott, J 1996, Understanding public views of youth crime and the youth justice system. The Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 271-290. McKeen, S. & McConnell, R 1994, Crime & punishment: Are more of today’s kids breaking the law? The statistics say not really, Calgary Herald, p. A1. Read More