The Public Perceptions of Youth Crime and Young Offenders - Literature review Example

The public perceptions of youth crime and young offenders Your name: Institution name: Introduction The Young Offender Act of 1993 has been established to reconcile issues of responsibility and accountability with regards to young offenders in Australia (Goldson, 2000). In recent months there have been a lot of coverage of young offenders in the mainstream media and this has led to the conclusion that present policies and laws have been found to be ineffective in a way that crimes that have been committed by young people appear to be increasing in seriousness and number (Goldson and Muncie, 2012). Indeed, young offenders’ crimes in Australia has come to the limelight as a public concern which have been fuelled by norms and beliefs that youth criminal activities is increasing at alarming rate, and the relevant authorities need to deal harshly with the problem. Nowadays, the public opinions is found to be heavily influenced by the media (Gelb, 2006). The specific type, is that criminal activities carried out by young people is deemed to be newsworthy and which evoke feelings of retribution and anger in the people’s mind (Green, 2006). These feelings among people contribute to public perception harsher youth justice measures (Mooney and Young, 2006). While, proposed legislations and laws that exist today towards “get tough” strategies suggest that youth crimes in Australia is out of control and that the current law is too lenient to young offenders (Prior, 2005). Similarly, the creation of ‎'youth crime divisions' by the law enforcement has been interpreted by majority of citizens as an indication that crime perpetrated by the youth is out of control. Significance of the study Based on the mainstream media reports on the young people in crime, it can be said that the general public is being led to believe that crimes committed by youths have been increasing at an alarming rate, as is the seriousness of the crime that being committed (Goldson and Muncie, 2012). Indeed as Munice (2001) point out: there is a lot of negative discussion, one young person is being charged every week for homicide related offences. To some extent that the main stream media report these issues on a regular basis, this means that the public has the opportunity to hear these negative news on crime committed by young people (Gelb, 2006). Thus, as University of Ottawa criminologist Robert Julian points out, it is understandable, if the media is reporting these criminal activities carried out by young people regularly, for the public to believe that there is an increase (Mooney and Young, 2006). People will remember these reports on crime and assume that they must not have been “like these” a few years ago. It can be said that past research studies on public perception on young criminal offenders are not many, those studies that already exists have suggested that the public perception on youth crimes is on the rise (Munice, 2001). For example, a Calgary survey that involved 350 participants, found that approximately 40 per cent of the participants listed youth violence or youth gangs as one of the problems that affect that town (Collins, 1992). While, the annual CTV polls have shown a consistently increase in number of Canadians who claim that youth criminal behaviour is getting worse: from 35 per cent in the 1990s to 65 per cent in 1995 (McDonald, 1995) (Nacro, 2006). The survey has also revealed that 80 per cent of Canadian population, up from 65 per cent in 1990 felt that young people criminal behaviours is worse than it used to be before (Gates, 1997). Numerous literature review have shown that people perception on young criminal offenders is still under researched field, while little attempts have been made to measure and define public perception on youth crime (Gelb, 2006). Analysis of these numerous literatures, it has been said there is a tendency for many people to overestimate the level of youth with criminal offences, the number of youth, the proportion of criminal activities that have been committed by the young offenders, and the seriousness of these crimes committed by youths (Nacro, 2006). Numerous literature review have suggested that public perception on young people involvement in crime is not always based on the personal experiences of many people, and it has also been suggested that public perception on youth crime tend to outstrip direct experiences of youth crimes (Nayak, 2003). This phenomenon also meant that external factors such as the media reporting have highly contributed in shaping the public perception on the young people criminal activities (Newbury, 2008). According to Bateman (2006), there is not relationship between actual prevalence of young offender and perception of young people behaviours (Nacro, 2006). For example, there is more negative perception in high-crime areas, as compared to those areas where crime related activities are low (Cohen, Rust and Steen, 2003). But, other factors such as direct experience of youth in criminal activities, may be a contributing factors to mismatch between the reality of public perception about the youth crimes. Research Question In recent years, crime among the youth have been at the centre of policy makers and public attentions (Prior, 2005). Main stream media coverage of cases and the frequent portrayal of the youth terrorising people would suggest that young people are becoming criminalised (Morrow, 2008). The image that is portrayed by young people out there appears to be under public perceptions and threat matter especially as policies and government agendas are shaped by the attitudes and concerns of the general public (Wilson et el, 2006). This review of literature on public perception on youth crime and young offenders attempts to establish the facts by asking the following two questions 1) has there been a change in the levels of youth crime in recent years? 2). Does the public’s perception of youth crime correspond with the actual levels of offending among the young people? Research Methodology A combination of qualitative and quantitative research study method was employed where a questionnaire was administered in a face-to face interview with selected participants (Schissel, 2007). A sample of 200 participants was targeted for the research study (Nacro, 2006). There was a 10 per cent to 20 per cent validation exercise to assure the integrity of the data/information that was gathered, and after completion, the questionnaires were edited for consistency and completeness before being processed (Winterdyk, 2000). The processed information was analysed by the following demographics: Age groups (15 to 20 years and 21 years and older) Socio economic categories Gender Household type Highest level of education achieved Juvenile in household For the qualitative information, in-depth interviews were conducted on the focus group to help explore public perceptions of youth crime and young offenders and to obtain detailed feedback on the research study objectives (Tonry, 2007). The focus group consisted of 50 respondents each with an even distribution of gender (West, 2004). The correspondent were chosen using a determined criteria which specified that one group should be between the age of 15-20 years of both gender; and the other group of adults should be 21 years and older, both male and female (Schissel, 2007). This is to ensure that there was enough to constitute a comparative analysis between the two groups. The group response was categorised as a younger respondent and an older respondent. The in-depth interviews was done with key personnel in the relative processes of juvenile rehabilitation and offending so that their concerns would inform the quantitative aspect of the research study. Data Analysis Perception of youth crime and young offenders have been found to be affected by demographic factors such as gender, age and social-economic level. However, numerous research studies have looked at the impact of these determining factors in relation to general (West, 2004), rather than young people criminal activities specifically (Munice, 2001). One research study found that many adults have no or little social contact with the youth between the ages of 10 years and 25 years (Tonry, 2007). The implication of this problem is that those grown up who have at-least direct contact with youth who participate in criminal activities are consistently more likely to have negative views about the youths and crime (West, 2004). The findings have showed that people are more concerned with criminal activities in their communities, than youth crimes (Tonry, 2007). In local areas, a sizable majority of the respondents in somehow were very concerned about crime in their neighbourhood (Tonry, 2007). Majorities of the respondents (74 per cent) attributed most of their crime related concerns that involves the youth were related to drug activities. Suburbanites and urban dwellers alike were more concerned about vandalism and drugs, particularly among local youths. Despite perceptions on the youth crime rates, the public tends to place a very low priority on youth crime as a national issue compared to other important issues that pegs the nation. Only 40 per cent of the respondent believe crime among the youth is important problem facing the country (West, 2004). But fear of being a victim of youth crime may be declining with the actual violent crime rate. Indeed 50 per cent of the respondent especially women reported fear walking alone at night near their neighbourhood. In addition, the respondents were most concerned about youths breaking into their home when they are away. According to the data, there is no correlation between actual prevalence of youth offences and perceptions of youth behaviour (Storgaard, 2004). For example, one would expect more negative perceptions on youth in high crime risk areas, compared to areas where recorded offence were low (Winterdyk, 2000). But factors other than direct experience of young people crime may be responsible for contributing to a mismatch between the realities and perceptions of such criminal behaviours among the youth, such as the impact of mainstream media reporting on people’s perceptions of the youth (Tanner, 2001). Both of these relationship have been found to be positive, which suggests that as one percentage increases so does the other. The media has been seen to be a major contributing factor in the possible mismatch between the reality of youth crime and the public perception. There have been a long history of mainstream media influence in relation to ‘moral panics’ and ‘folk devils’ (Nayak, 2003). The mainstream media’s impact and role can been felt to have appropriate and direct resonance in the contemporary youth crime debate (Storgaard, 2004). Majority of the respondent reported that people’s perception is systematically misinformed about young people and crime and the mainstream media was responsible for this misinformation (Tanner, 2001). In the research study, almost 75 per cent of the respondent believed that there had been an increase in the number of young offenders. 64 per cent of the respondents cited media reports as their chief source of information. Conclusion A lot of work that have been considered in this literature review argued that there is an imbalance between the public’s perception of level of youth crimes and the actual levels of crimes (West, 2004). In general, the public is found to have an impression that young people committing crime is more prevalent than recorded figures would warrant (Winterdyk, 2000). This is perhaps not surprising, given that the public also tend to misjudge on the overall scale of criminal activities. However, a comprehensive analysis of the current problem is rare in the most literature. If it true that the public perception on the youth crime do not match the realities of criminal activities, then there is more need to find out why this is the case (Munice, 2001). Large-scale quantification of public perceptions may be needed in order to gauge which sections of the public hold which type of views about which types of offending behaviour, carried out by which type of youth offender, in which areas (Smandych, 2008). This way, resources could be more efficiently directed to reduce public anxieties about young offenders in order to tackle the pressing problem effectively, it is also important to understand those factors that contribute to the public perceptions. References Bateman, T. (2006). Youth Crime and Justice: Statistical ‘Evidence’, Recent Trends and Responses. London: Sage. Cohen, M., R. Rust and S. Steen (2003). Measuring public perceptions of appropriate prison sentences, Executive Summary. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Justice. Collins, R. (1992, June 5). Youth crime feared. Calgary Herald, p. B1 Ennals, P. (2003). ‘We are not criminals’, Community Care, 1493, 40-41. Gates, Rob. (1997, July/August). Youth crime: are jails and work camps the solution? Briarpatch 26(6), 11-12. Gelsthorpe, L., & Morris, A. (2002). Restorative Youth Justice: The last vestiges of welfare? In J. Muncie, G. Hughes & E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings. Gelb, K. (2006). Myths and misconceptions: Public opinion versus public judgment about sentencing. Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council. Goldson, B. (2000). The New Youth Justice. Lime Regis: Russell House. Goldson, B., & Muncie, J. (2012). Towards a global 'child friendly' juvenile justice? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40, 47-64. Green, D. A. (2006). Public opinion versus public judgment about crime. British Journal of Criminology 46: 131–54. Hicks, A., & Lawrence, J. (2004). Procedural Safeguards for Young Offenders: Views of Legal Professionals and Adolescents. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(3). McDonald, M. (1995, January 2). The perception gap: Despite what crime experts say demands for harsher penalties are growing louder. Macleans, 28. Mooney, J and Young, J. (2006). ‘The decline in crime and the rise of anti-social behaviour”, Probation Journal 53,4, 397-407. Morrow, V. (2008). Ethical Dilemmas in research with children and young people about their social environments. Children's Geographies, 6(1), 49-61. Munice, J. (2001). The construction and deconstruction of crime, In: Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E.(Eds) The problem of Crime. Second edn. London: Sage. Nacro. (2006). Some Facts About Children and Young People Who Offend:2004 (Youth Crime Briefing:March). London: Nacro. Nayak, A. (2003). Through children’s eyes: childhood place and the fear of crime, Geoforum 34,3, 303-15. Newbury, A. (2008). Youth Crime: Whose Responsibility? Journal of Law and Society, 35 (1), 131-149 Prior, D. (2005). Evaluating the New Youth Justice: What Can Practitioners Learn from Research? Practice, 17(2). Schissel, B. (2007). Blaming Children: Youth Crime, Moral Panics and Political Hate. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Smandych, R. (2008). History, Legislation and Reform: Youth Justice. Toronto: Harcourt. Storgaard, A. (2004). Juvenile Justice in Scandinavia. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 5, 188-204. Tanner, J. (2001). Teenage Troubles: Youth and Deviance in Canada (2nd Edition) Toronto: Nelson Thomson Learning. Tonry, M. (2007). Treating Juveniles as Adult Criminals: An Iatrogenic Violence Prevention Strategy if Ever There Was One. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(4S). West, G.W. (2004). Young Offenders and the State: A Canadian Perspective on Delinquency. Toronto: Butterworths. Wilson, D., Sharp, C. and Patterson, A. (2006). Young People and Crime: Findings from the 2005 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 17/06). London: Home Office [online]. Available: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1706.pdf [28 February, 2008]. Winterdyk, J. (2000). Issues and Perspectives on Young Offenders in Canada (2nd Edition). Toronto: Harcourt Canada. Read More