The Restorative Justice Paradigm in the Youth Justice System - Research Paper Example

 1: Introduction The role of the media as public watchdog has fuelled contentious debate as to the legitimate parameters of news reporting and the extent to which mass media can be used to shape government policy agendas1. For example, if we consider the legislative framework for youth crime in the UK, the central pieces of legislation regulating the youth justice system in England and Wales are the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and more recently the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (CJIA 2008) implemented as a result of media pressure and public perception of the need to combat the proliferation of youth crime. The focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the current legal system applicable to youth justice in England and Wales and consider the influence of the media in shaping youth justice initiatives and sentencing. To this end, I shall primarily consider the role of the mass media in influencing public perceptions of crime with contextual reference to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the provisions leading up to the implementation of the CJIA 2008. 2: Mass Media Model & Public Perception The polarised debate regarding the right to media freedom within the UK legal system has remained contentious with some questioning whether there is true freedom of speech in light of media regulation2. Moreover, the de-regulation of the media ownership structures implemented by the Communications Act 2003 has led some to argue that whilst ostensibly aiming to take media control out of the public sector, the financial ownership structures within the private sector, further impedes media freedom due to the control of powerful minorities3. In turn this correlates to Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model and the hypodermic model of utilising the mass media medium to continuously deliver messages to the “passive audience”4. Furthermore, Curren and Seaton comment that “the mass media are rather like the political parties in that they tend to gravitate towards the centre in response to competitive pressures”5. Whilst media deregulation has led to an expansion in choice; doubts have been expressed over quality and concentration of media industry has taken effect under the deregulation provisions largely due to horizontal integration6. Therefore the result of this has been a handful of media barons with influence and power of media to broadcast their ideology and increase of competition among channels for advertisers7. The effect of deregulation has effectively led to fewer businesses controlling the mass media. As such, it has been submitted that the shrinking media ownership has given way to the incorporation of a Marxist media model through the back door8. The most obvious example is the Murdoch empire. Rupert Murdoch owns Sky News, controls the Sun and the Times newspapers and owns almost 35% of distributed newspapers9. Moreover, Murdoch is unabashed in expressing his agenda “for better for worse, our company….is a reflection of my thinking, my character, my values”, which is in line with Chomsky’s extrapolation in “Media Control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda”10. Furthermore, Chomsky argues that the UK is effectively a “spectator” democracy, which is regulated by an elite group to create a different version of reality as a result of media manipulation11. To this end, Herman and Chomsky posit that it is effectively the elite consensus that structures every element of news distribution12. However, rather than operate as a challenge to the establishment, Herman and Chomsky argue that “the media work hard to discover and mirror its assumptions”13. As a result, this has lent itself to the mass media model being utilised to shape government policy agendas and Cohen highlights that this has led to the “moral panic” paradigm; where mass media influences societal concepts of morality through the hypodermic model14. In turn, Cohen highlights that not only does the mass media serve as a tool for shaping perception on crime; the interrelationship between political agendas and media means that the mass media can be disproportionate in highlighting specific crimes15. For example, Cohen comments that: “In the case of drug taking, the media play on the normative concerns of the public and by thrusting certain moral directives into the universe of discourse, can create social problems suddenly and dramatically”16. Furthermore, in reinforcing this argument, Cohen highlights that mass media specifically focuses on deviance through hyperbole and sensationalism. To this end, Cohen observes that the: “more dramatic the confrontations between deviance and control in manhunts, trials and punishments are recurring objects of attentions”17. For example, Cohen refers to how a large proportion of the news focuses on deviant behaviour and the consequences; which in turn leads to the moral panic syndrome in shaping morality and the public conception of right and wrong. This in turn reinforces the hypodermic media model and in turn risks the creation of stereotypes, which has impacted legislation governing youth justice. For example, this is further acknowledged in the UK by the negative reaction to the “hoodie” culture; who are perceived by the police and media as symbols of crime18. Indeed, McGurran reported that an Ex metropolitan police chief believed that there should be longer prison sentences for offences committed by hoodies19. 3: Media, Law Reform & Youth Justice In general terms, the concept of law reform is often intertwined with policy and is reactive to socio-political and economic factors. Indeed Eddey & Darbyshire comment that “New Governments want to make their mark20”, which will inherently be correlated to public opinion. Furthermore, the media plays a significant part in shaping public opinion. For example, Pickford posits that: “the media commands a central ideological role in modern, urban societies…..the dominant class have privileged access to the media but their views ….. are “disguised” as the interests of everyone in society”21. Pickford provides the examples of sensationalised newspaper headlines claiming “Blighted children who find hope in heroin”22; which in turn correlates to Cohen’s reference to the mass media model having fuelled the moral panic in public perception. Therefore, the media clearly plays a significant role in shaping public opinion on crime, which is evidenced by the “mass manipulative” theory pertaining to the relationship between mass media and public opinion. From a contextual perspective, Pearson argues “that fear of the young is almost endemic to society, suggesting that an over-dramatised sense of threat is always close to the surface in public media consciousness.”23 A prime example is the media reporting of the James Bulger murder in 1993, where the defendants were aged ten at the time of the murder. The media reporting of the case provoked public outcry and supports Pickford’s proposition that the media shapes public opinion by the depiction of a dangerous youth. Indeed, Smith highlights that “perceptions of the pattern of youth crime are unbalanced, “media portrayals of persistent juvenile offenders and the continuing influence of the James Bulger murder on the public psyche….. are the most likely cause.24” This triggered the issue of youth crime to the forefront of the political agenda, which was evidenced by the “Misspent Youth: Young People and Crime” paper undertaken by the Audit Commission (AC) in 199625, proposing a radical overhaul of the Youth Justice System. This further culminated in the Home Office White Paper “No More Excuses26”, which set out the Government’s programme of reform for the youth justice system, which was then embodied in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Section 37 of the 1998 Act established the central purpose of aiming to prevent repeat offending and as such, the 1998 Act imposed a duty on all agencies and bodies working under the youth justice umbrella to have regard to it in carrying out their duties27. Moreover, the “No More Excuses” paper proposed address repeat offending by identifying factors that were correlated to juvenile crime. For example, Graham and Bowling posit that factors such as troubled home life and poor attainment at school, contribute to the risks of youth offending28. Therefore the Government intended to adopt a socially contextual approach by attempting to address the myriad of triggers increasing the risk of repeat offending. A prime example is the 1998 Act’s vesting the police with new powers to confiscate alcohol from children in public. Additionally, the 1998 Act introduced the drug treatment and testing order29. Ashford further observes that between 1999 to 2007 grants were made to develop youth crime prevention initiatives to an approximate cost of £100 million pounds30. Notwithstanding the cost, the Ashford Report indicates that these prevention programmes by youth offending teams were generally effective31. Indeed, Burrows comments that the Youth Intervention Programme was noted to be successful in reducing arrest rates and the gravity of repeat offending32. However in 2004, the AC recommended that youth crime prevention would be more effective if schools, health services and other agencies assumed increased responsibility for young people33. Additionally, the statutory aim of the 1998 Act was to make offenders and their parents address offending behaviour and take responsibility. To this end, the 1998 act abolished the doctrinal presumption of Doli Incapax for 10-14 year olds and introduced parenting orders to help parents control the behaviour of their children34. In terms of parenting responsibility, Ghate and Ramella’s study of 42 parenting projects was an extremely useful insight into the range of behavioural improvements as well as lowered reconviction rates brought about by the 1998 Act35. However, the 2004 AC report highlighted that the use of parenting orders varied between areas and was not consistently enforced36. This was amended in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, by introducing parenting contacts and parenting orders available with referral orders; and by providing additional funding. Additionally, the No More Excuses White paper proposed that the youth justice system should improve public confidence as a result of the public perception of youth crime, which in turn highlights the influence of the media under the hypodermic model in terms of shaping public perception and public concepts of morality. For example, Hough and Roberts37 posited that whilst actual figures indicated that youth crime figures had not increased in recent years, three out of four believed it had. Furthermore, Bala et al’s observations of the public perception further highlight the influence of sensational media reporting on opinion. For example, Bala et al comment that a significant proportion of people were completely unaware that 80% of custodial sentences resulted in reconviction within two years and that community sentences are three times cheaper than custodial sentences, which may contribute to prevention of repeat offending38. Moreover, the public’s lack of understanding of the machinations of the youth justice system is highlighted by the various surveys as studies demonstrate that “most people feel that the courts are too soft with offenders39” with public confidence being low. Indeed, Hough and Roberts observe that the public tends to want harsh penalties, which are rooted in misconceptions regarding sentencing practice40. Additionally, the AC report indicated that the confidence in the youth justice system fell from 25 to 21% after the inception of the 1998 Act41. This in turn has a detrimental impact as the AC indicates that nearly fifty per cent of magistrates take into account public opinion when sentencing42. However, this arguably represents a disproportionate representation of youth sentencing practice and patterns of youth crime. For example, Hough and Roberts comment that “three quarters of the population thought that youth crime was rising, when there was little evidence for this. They cited the media as the main source of information that led them to this belief”43. This is further compounded by the failure of the media to address the restorative justice aspect of the 1998 Act in preventing repeat offending. For example, the 1998 Act introduced measures geared towards risk factors in first time offending and introduced child safety orders and local child curfews to protect children under 10 from becoming involved in crime. Additionally, the Audit Commission surveys suggest that the restorative measures of youth justice reform have been effective in practice44. Prime examples under the 1998 Act include reparation orders, final warnings, action plan orders and amendments to existing supervision order provisions45. Furthermore, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 developed a restorative justice approach with the creation of referral orders.46 Referral orders are claimed to “bring home to young offenders what they have done”47. They are directed at young people without any prior convictions and hailed as “one of the most important forms of restorative justice in the Youth Justice System”48. Under the referral orders system, the offender will attend a Youth Offending Panel whereby the panel agrees a programme with the offender to make reparation and tackle the root of their offending49. These can include a number of activities such as curfews and programmes of community reparation50. With regard to reparation orders, the Home Office Report demonstrates that during 2002 over half of all youth offending team interventions were restorative with 68% of victims claiming to be satisfied from the process51. Moreover, the rises in the UK prison populations has rendered the consideration of restorative justice to the fore as a viable alternative within the youth justice system52. Moreover, from a youth offending perspective, Hudson posits that restorative justice system would seem better equipped for juveniles committing minor offences53. Additionally, the National Audit Office research into these final warnings and reprimands argued that they were effective in preventing re-offending patterns. Fifty seven per cent of magistrates rated these programmes as good or excellent in providing sufficient supervision and eight out of ten felt it was beneficial in providing an appropriate response to the first time offenders54. However, the quality of the orders varies locally and concerns were expressed about delays, between court hearing and a panel meeting55. Furthermore, the Youth Justice Board’s Annual Statistics56 indicate that the required target for Final Warning performance is being met, and those which used intervention programmes have improved thinking and behaviour in attitudes to offending57. However, the AC suggested that a lack of training is jeopardising the system58. Therefore, the Government Green Paper “Youth justice – the next steps59”, which is the companion to the “Every Child Matters” paper60 felt that substantial improvements had been made into the youth justice system under the 1998 Act, however recommended the strengthening of parenting interventions and community intensive supervision as the main response to repeat and serious offending. Many of the recommendations were embodied in the CJIA 2008, which implements new procedures of youth rehabilitation orders for offenders under the age of 18. Moreover, procedures regarding referral orders and custodial sentencing have been bolstered61. The above analysis highlights the complex issues contributing to youth crime. Moreover, it is evident that the media representation of youth crime clearly informs public opinion, which can be misguided in its perception of youth crime offender patterns. This in turn leads to a public opinion heavily in favour harsh penalties, whilst ignoring the potential benefits of restorative justice in addressing repeat youth offending patterns. This is further highlighted by the dichotomy between public opinion and results of surveys considering the efficacy of the 1998 Act provisions in practice. 4: Conclusion To this end, it is submitted that the Government legislative measures whilst undoubtedly motivated by public opinion have been welcome in attempting to address the complex factors contributing to youth crime. However, somewhat ironically the Audit Commission surveys suggest that it is the custodial sentences and concomitant impact of rehabilitating the offender post incarceration that has proved most problematic for the youth court system in preventing repeat offending. Accordingly, it is submitted that more consideration should be given to the restorative justice paradigm in the youth justice system. Whilst by no means a panacea, it may work towards increasing efficiency within the youth court system with the resultant impact of increasing public confidence in the system. Bibliography Ashford (2007). Towards a Youth Crime Prevention Strategy, London: Youth Justice Board Audit Commission (1996). Misspent Youth, Young people and crime. London: Audit Commission Audit Commission (2004). Criminal Justice National Report, Youth Justice 2004: A review of the reformed youth justice system. London: Audit Commission Bala, N, Hornick, J., Snyder, H. & Paestch, J. (2002). Juvenile Justice: International Comparisons of Problems and Solutions. Thompson Educational Publishing Briggs, A., & Burke, P. (2005). A Social History of the Media. Polity Burrows (2003). Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme, End of Phase One Report. London: Youth Justice Board Campbell, V. (2004). Information Age Journalism. London, Arnold Chomsky, N (1999). Profit over people: neoliberalism and global order. Seven Stories Press Cohen, S. (2002). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. Routledge Crawford. A., & Newburn, T (2002). Recent Developments in Restorative Justice for Young People in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 2002 Volume 42, No. 3 Curran, J., & Seaton, J. (2003). Power without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain. 6th Edition. Routledge Penny Darbyshire, & K.J. Eddey., Eddey and Darbyshire on the English Legal System. 7th Edition Sweet & Maxwell 2002. Frost, C. (2007). Journalism Ethics and Regulation. 2nd Edition. Longman J. Graham & B. Bowling (1995). Young People and crime. London: Home Office Ghate, D. & Ramella, M., (2002). Positive Parenting. London: Youth Justice Board Herman, E. & Chomsky, N (2008). Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. Random House Home Office (1997) No More Excuses: A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales. London Home Office Home Office (2003). Restorative Justice: The Government’s Strategy. A Consultation Document on the Government’s Strategy on Restorative Justice. London Home Office. Available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk accessed December 2010 Hough & Roberts (2003). Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales: ICPR research paper no.1 London: ICPR Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Cullompton: Willan Publishing McGurran, A. (2001) Hoodies Jail Plea. Daily Mirror available at www.mirror.co.uk accessed December 2010. Jane Pickford (2000). Youth Justice: Theory and Practice. Routledge Shapland, J., A. Atkinson, E. College, J. Dignan, M. Howes, J. Johnstone, R. Pennant, G. Robinson, and A. Sorsby (2004). Implementing Restorative Justice Schemes: A Report on the First Year. Home Office Online Report 32/40. London Home Office, at www.homeoffice.gov.uk accessed December 2010. R. Smith (2007). Youth Justice: ideas, policy and practice. Willan Publishing Legislation & Websites Crime and Disorder Act 1998 available at www.opsi.gov.uk accessed December 2010 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 1998 at www.opsi.gov.uk accessed December 2010 www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations accessed December 2010 www.everychildmatters.gov.uk accessed December 2010 Read More