Public Perceptions Young Offenders - Research Paper Example

Public perceptions of youth crime and young offenders Name Edith Cowan University TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents ABSTRACT 3 LITERATURE REVIEW 4 Introduction 4 The difference between young offenders and adult offenders 5 Public Perceptions Regarding Youth Crime and Young Offenders 6 Factors contributing to the public misconception about youth crime and young offenders 8 Media influence 8 Personal characteristics of the members of public 9 Handling of the young people and youth crime 10 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 METHOD 12 Research Design 12 Paradigm and Assumptions 13 Sample 13 Data Collection Procedures 14 Ethics 14 Data Analysis 15 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS 15 Common crimes among the youth 16 Areas where young people commit crimes 16 Factors that cause young people to offend 16 Sentence for young offenders 17 Role of media in shaping the perceptions 17 Limitations 17 Directions for future research 17 CONCLUSION 18 REFERENCES 19 Maydanchik, A. (2007). Data Quality Assessment. Denville, NJ, Technics Publications. 22 APPENDICES 23 ABSTRACT There has been growing public perceptions that the rate of youth crime and young offenders is increasing despite official statistics indicating that it is not. This study sought to find out the attitude that members of public have regarding youth crime. A total of 10 participants ranging between 21 and 29 years, four female and six male were used in the study that employed demographic questionnaires with questions regarding people’s views on the research problem. Data was statistically analysed and conclusions drawn. The findings of the study revealed that members of public believe that youth’s involvement in crime has increased. Members of public also believe that the youth justice system is not effective when dealing with young people, but they are not clear on what is the most effective sentence for young people. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The term Young offender refers to young people who are usually treated differently by legal systems in various countries. Criminal trials involving these people are usually carried out by special youth courts to differentiate them form adult criminals. These courts fall under the juvenile justice system (Richards, 2009). Different countries have different age provisions at which the person should be able to take up criminal responsibility. However, most countries classify young offenders as aged between 10 and 18 years and all criminals in this age bracket are dealt with by the juvenile justice system (Liverani, 2011). The Australia’s Young Offenders Act 1997 defines an adult as a person aged above 18 years while a child as one aged between 10 and 18 years. The act however applies to a person who was a child by the time he/she committed the crime but also extends to those below 21 years whose offences are covered by the Act (Young Offenders Act, 1997 section 7A). In Canada, young offenders are covered by the Youth Criminal Justice Act but it applies to those aged 12 to 18 years (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002). The Canadian Juvenile justice system is made up of rules, agencies and people who are supposed to control, punish and rehabilitate the young offenders. The Australian juvenile justice system is a state government function whose operations are dictated by state legislation and is made up of state departments (Richards, 2009). Despite the fact that statistics in various countries such as Canada and Australia are showing decreasing trends in involvement of young people in crime, members of public are still holding into perceptions that the engagement of young people into crime is increasing (Chaplin, Flatley& Smith, (2011) and Public Safety Canada (2014). This chapter therefore reviews how members of public perceive the involvement of young people into crime and factors that have led to such perceptions. The difference between young offenders and adult offenders In the past, various countries have been subjecting children and adult offenders to similar criminal justice processes including penalties such as capital and corporal punishments as well as hard labor. However, currently most legal systems in the world have adopted a separate juvenile justice system meant to deal with young offenders aged between 10 and 18 years in a lenient manner. The juvenile system acknowledges that young offenders are immature and inexperienced and may due to various influences find themselves wrongly in the hands of criminal justice system. Crime rate has however been high among the young people as compared to adults. Majority of young offenders are at around the age of 17 years the age at the peak of adolescence. However, when most of them become adults, they outgrow crime and this could be the reason for decline in crime rate among the adults. Most of the crimes that young people engage in are related to property such as theft, unlawful entry with intent and deception. Adults are mostly associated with crimes such as sexual assault, illicit drugs and robbery with violence (Cunneen& White, 2007). A number of factors differentiate between crimes committed by young people and those committed by adults. One of the factors is the likelihood of young people to take risks and to be influenced by their peers as compared to adults. According to a research by Steinberg (2005) indicated that during the second decade of the brain development, rapid changes occurs characterized by inhibition of response, calibration of risks and rewards among others. Steinberg (2005) explains that this is associated with a disjunction between adolescence experiences and their ability to regulate motivate and arousal, and also adolescent’s tendency to overestimate risks. Intellectual disabilities and mental illnesses have also been associated with crime among young people. A study by Frize, Kenny and Lennings (2008) in Australia found out that 17% of the young detainees had an IQ below 70. Many of the detained juveniles were also found to suffer from mental illnesses. A survey carried out in 2005 in New South Wales among young people in police custody also found 88% of them with mild, moderate and severe symptoms of psychiatric disorders. The other factor that differentiates youth crime from adult crime is the high chances that young people for being victims of crime compared to the adults. Young people are also likely to be victims of crimes that their peers have committed. For example, reports by the Australian Institute of Criminology indicated that between 1990 and 2008, about a third of victims of homicide were 15 to 17 year-olds who had been killed by other juveniles (AIC, 2008). Public Perceptions Regarding Youth Crime and Young Offenders No much study has been carried out to assess public perceptions of members of public regarding involvement of young people in crime. However, those that have been conducted have identified over estimation of the magnitude of the youth crime and young offenders. Members of public believe that young people are highly involved in crime and that their rate of involvement is increasing. Examples of studies that have been carried out include: The 2006/07 British crime survey which identified that majority of respondents overestimated the magnitude by which young people contribute to the overall offending behavior. Mattinson & Mirrlees-Black (2000) also found out that majority of members of public assumed that it is young people who were responsible for majority of crimes being committed. Study by Ipsos MORI (2006a) also indicated that members of the public overestimate the extent of young people’s involvement in violent acts. Some of the respondents perceived that almost half of the crimes are associated with young people. This was in contrary to crime records that indicated young people were responsible for only one fifth of violent crimes. Studies also revealed that the perceptions that members of public have are not as a result of personal experiences. A study by Anderson et al. (2005) found out that among the respondents, only a few have had personal experiences with youth in crime compared to the extent in which they portrayed the magnitude of the problem. This was an indication that there are external factors such as the media, which influence public perceptions on youth’s involvement in crime. Similar perceptions were also identified in United States and Canada. Members of public in U.S and Canada also believe that youth crime is on the rise whereas police statistical records indicate that it is not increasing (John Howard society of Alberta, 1998). According to Tyler and Boeckmann (1997), formation of these perceptions can be explained by the instrumental theory and expressive theory. According to the instrumental theory, such perceptions might have arisen from personal experiences of individuals who have been victims of youth crime. Expressive theory explains that such perceptions may have results from general social concerns regarding crime. Such concerns may have been attributed to by culture, conditions that favor crime and also social changes and social relations. These factors may however not directly relate to crime but they may raise the concerns (Jackson, 2004). Factors contributing to the public misconception about youth crime and young offenders Various studies have identified different factors that have contributed to the perceptions that members of public have regarding youth crime and young offenders. These factors include media, personal characteristics of members of public, and the manner in which young people and youth crime is handled by the criminal justice system. Media influence Media reports regarding youth crime have often been misleading and this has contributed to the perceptions that members of public have. In a study by Hough and Roberts (2004), the overall findings indicated that members of public believe that the rate of youth crime and young offenders is rising and about two-thirds of those who believe so got the information from media. The study also revealed that during media reporting, a lot of emphasis is put on most violent and sensational crimes where young people were involved which in real sense makes a small proportion of youth crimes. These are not representative of youth crimes and end up creating the false image of young people. For example, statistics released by Youth Justice Board in 2006/7 on youth crime indicated serious crimes committed by young people and on young people has contributed to the existing perceptions among the public. The role of media in influencing public perceptions has also been pointed in other countries (Ipsos MORI, 2006). For example, a study carried out by Sprott (1996) in three newspapers in Toronto indicated that 94% of stories talking about youth crime only mentioned the violent crimes. Media has also been said to be biased by overlooking violent crimes committed by adults and emphasizing more on those committed by young people whereas those committed by adults are the majority. This has created a false impression and making the public to believe that youth crime is a chronic problem (McKeen& McConnell, 1994). The prohibition by Canada’s Young Offenders Act on exposing the identity of young offenders has worsened the situation since people always make their assumptions. Personal characteristics of the members of public Studies have identified that the perceptions that members of public have regarding youth crime are also due to their personal characteristics. Looking at the general perceptions, the 2006/7 British Crime Survey revealed that people’s perceptions differ according to their attitudes and the socio-demographic characteristics. A varying trend was noted across age, gender, level of knowledge and location of respondents. For example, a study by Lovbakke and Moley (2007) found the perception that youth crime is increasing to be more common among women as compared to men. The perceptions were also found to be high among those in the advanced age that the young people despite the fact that young people should be more worried over crimes relating to theft and violence. Regarding the location, a study by Anderson et al. (2005) identified that perceptions on the increase of general crime rate were more common among those living in rented houses unlike among those living in their own houses. On the level of knowledge on the lives and affairs of young people, Anderson et al. (2005) identified that negative perceptions are most common among those who do not have knowledge on young people and their lives. Handling of the young people and youth crime Members of public’s perception regarding youth crime have also been shaped by the manner in which the criminal justice system and legislature handles matters involving youth crime. Trends among young people which have been considered as normal social issues have been criminalized and represented as threat to members of society. For example, as education welfare issue such as school dropout has been portrayed as security threat to the public and an issue that is putting the lives of young people at a risk (Ennals, 2003). Anti-social behaviors attributed to by immaturity among young people have been criminalized and indicated as drivers of crime. Researching on public attitudes to youth crime, Jacobson & Kirby (2012) were informed by respondents that they feel intimidated by young people who walk in crowds and do not give way. This is however a common immature and anti-social behavior by adolescents but it has been viewed as problematic and leading to crime (Waiton, 2001). A lot of young people’s habits have also been criminalized by the Anti-Social Behavior Orders which is civil order applying to those engaging in anti-social behavior. The order has labeled a number of common anti-social youth behaviors as crime leading to criminalization of many young people and hence the public perceptions that youth crime is on rise (Nicholas, Kershaw & Walker, 2007). Public perceptions on the causes of increase youth crime and young offenders Apart from the perceptions that there is increase in involvement of young people in crime, members of public also have various perceptions regarding the causes of increase. In their study, Jacobson & Kirby (2012) obtained various reasons from the respondents on what they believe is driving young people into crime. Most of the respondents mentioned that they believe the society, the parents and the schools have failed in their role of disciplining the young people. Others mentioned that the parents are not taking good care of their children and are not guiding them, contributing to indiscipline as children grow. One of the respondents mentioned that if parents bring up their children in the right manner instilling in them honesty, kindness and gentleness, those children can never land in courts. Some explained that some children go through a lot of harshness as they grow and there is nobody to teach them even simple polite words such as “please and thank you”. Some respondents even preferred restoration of corporal punishment saying that the schools no longer discipline children. The support for corporal punishments was also identified in a study by Stewart (2011) where about half of the respondents stated that corporal punishment should be reinstated due to increase in indiscipline in schools. Another reason given was the failure by the criminal justice system to deliver and administer justice in the right manner. Some respondents stated that young people no longer fear the police and that the courts and the prisons are too lenient on the young offenders (Hough and Roberts 2004). This was also reported in the 2010/11 British Crime Survey where some people also stated that the police and the courts are dealing with young offenders in a lenient manner (Chaplin, Flatley& Smith, 2011). Possible consequences of False Public Perceptions regarding youth crime and young offenders Continued perceptions by the members of public regarding increasing involvement by young people in crime may have negative impacts unless interventions are put in place to restore the lost public trust. One of the impacts that this may have is putting more pressure on the courts to become more punitive when dealing with young offenders due to their perceived leniency. Law makers may also be under pressure to amend the law dealing with young offenders. An example of this happened in Canada in 2002 where the Federal Government amended Young Offenders Act to allow moving of cases of those 16 and 17 years to adult courts where the case involved a serious offence. These misconception can unnecessarily be used to manipulate institutions that are alleged to have failed such as schools and criminal justice system into adopting tougher measures that will make lives of young offenders unbearable (Ipsos MORI, 2008). METHOD Research Design This study on public perceptions regarding youth crime and young offenders is an exploratory research which utilised qualitative cross-sectional research design where structured questionnaires containing closed-ended questions were administered to the respondents. Since the researcher was interested in the experiences and attitude of the respondents regarding youth crime and young offenders, a phenomenological approach was used. This enabled in identification of common attitude that members of public have regarding the research problem. Paradigm and Assumptions This research is grounded in the labelling theory which explains that people holding powerful positions decide what acts should be labelled crime and this result in labelling of those engaged in such acts as criminals. When a person is named a criminal, the society denies him/her opportunities and this promotes the criminal behaviour in that person. This theory demonstrates how the Anti-Social Behavior Orders has criminalized common youth habits leading to criminalization of young people by the society (Akers & Sellers, 2013). The other theory employed is the social learning theory which states that people gain skills to commit crime and get motivated to do so by others that they relate with. This explains the findings that young people have also suffered victims of crimes that have been committed by their peers. The other theory is the rational choice theory which states that some people may commit crimes after finding that rewards outweigh the risks. This explains the reason as to why the leniency of the police and the criminal justice system is to blame for increasing youth crime. The research is also grounded on the social control theory which states that a lot of people would commit crime were it not for controls from families, schools and churches among others. This theory has been used to demonstrate the reason as to why the schools and parents are to blame for the perceived increasing crime rate among the young people (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Sample The survey engaged a sample of 10 participants who were considered adequate to provide qualitative data. All the respondents were above 18 years, and they were randomly selected. The sample consisted of four females and six males, aged between 21 to 29 years (M=25). Participation in the study was voluntary and no rewards were offered by the researchers to the respondents for their participation. Data Collection Procedures Data was collected for by use of self-administered questionnaires consisting of demographic question (attached as Appendix "D") and questions assessing public perceptions on youth crime and public offenders (attached as Appendix "F"). However, the questionnaires were issued to consenting participants who acknowledged their willingness by filling in the consent form (attached as Appendix "G"). The filled questionnaires from the ten participants are presented as (Appendix “H”). Ethics The participants were allowed to fill the questionnaires ta their own convenient time. They were however advised that the information will be treated with utmost confidentiality and were allowed to withdraw their participation whenever they felt uncomfortable. They were also advised that they should not write their names or any identification details on the questionnaire and they can refuse to answer any question that makes them uncomfortable. They were also advised that data was only for the stated research purpose and would be destroyed once the purpose is accomplished. Data Analysis To analyse the data, the researcher started by coding all the questions. An individual Question Ordered Matrix (appendix “E”) was then constructed using variables in the questionnaire. A frequency table was then constructed to summarise all the demographic characteristics foe example the number of respondents with common residence, similar education level, and employment status among others. A question-answer matrix was constructed that would match the questions and answers for each respondent. For every question, a frequency table was used to group together similar responses to enable to researcher draw valid conclusions from the frequency of given responses. To ensure accuracy and truthfulness of the data, the researcher conducted a consistency test to identify reliability indicators. This was done by going through all the responses to identify impartiality. Triangulation method was also used during sampling to ensure consistency of the data (Maydanchik, 2007). FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS Generally, the findings indicate that people think that youth crime has increased. This is in line with findings of the British crime survey conducted in 2006/07. This perception cuts across people of all ages and different education backgrounds. Other findings from the research include: Common crimes among the youth Majority of the respondents believe that the most common crime among the young people involve offences related to drug use, followed by followed by graffiti and vandalism and finally disorderly conduct. Areas where young people commit crimes Majority of the respondents believe that those crimes are committed along the streets and footpaths, followed by retail shopping centres and in means of transport. How the youth justice system deals with young offenders Majority of the respondents disagreed that youth justice system effectively deals with young offenders. A number of respondents however agreed that the youth justice system is too soft when dealing with young offenders, although an equal number could neither agree nor disagree with that. However, on the other hand majority of them disagreed that the youth justice system is too harsh when dealing with young offenders. These findings are in line with Chaplin, Flatley& Smith (2011), who identified that members of public believe that the criminal justice system deals with young people in a lenient manner. Factors that cause young people to offend Most of the respondents believed that friends and peers have the most influence on the offending behaviours of young people. This was followed by the family environment and learning and emotional difficulties. This confirms findings by Stewart (2011) where respondents identified the role of schools and parents in instilling discipline among young people. Sentence for young offenders Majority of the respondents supported use of community service as a way of sentencing young offenders involved in property crimes. However, a number were not fully supportive of the idea. Regarding imprisonment of those involved in property crimes, there were mixed reactions with some supporting, some not supporting and an equal number remaining neutral on the issue. But regarding those who have committed violent crimes, most of the respondents supported both ideas of community service and imprisonment. Majority of the respondents agree that young offenders who have committed very serious crimes such as murder and sexual assault can be successfully rehabilitated. Role of media in shaping the perceptions Majority of the respondents could neither agree nor disagree that medial over-sensationalise crimes that have been committed by young offenders. However, television and newspaper were the top sources of information regarding young offenders. This confirms findings by McKeen& McConnell, (1994) on the role of the media in shaping public perceptions regarding youth crime and young offenders. Limitations The scope of study was however limited to members of public who are above 18 years and therefore did not obtain information from young people especially those who have been involved in crime. Directions for future research Further research needs to be done, particularly on 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. CONCLUSION The research findings have actually confirmed what literature says regarding public perceptions on youth crime and young offenders. Most people believe that youth crime is on the rise, contrary to statistics that say it is reducing. However, since the source of this information is the media, the media also needs to play a positive role of publicising the accurate information in reference to official statistics so that members of public can regain the lost trust. Also, this continued perception may contribute to criminalization of young people making life unbearable for them. 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, TheBritish Journal of Criminology 44(6): 946–966 Sprott, J. (1996). Understanding public views of youth crime and the youth justice system.TheCanadian 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. Akers, R & Sellers, C. (2013). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, Application. New York: Oxford University Press. Maydanchik, A. (2007). Data Quality Assessment. Denville, NJ, Technics Publications. APPENDICES Appendix A (Insert completed ECU Ethics Application) Appendix B (Insert signed Consent Form) Appendix C (Insert copy of Information Letter) Appendix D (Insert Demographics) Appendix E (Insert individual Question Ordered Matrix) Appendix F (Insert marked up Interview Transcript) Appendix G (Signed consent forms for surveys) Appendix H (10 surveys) Read More