Punishment and Welfare in the Youth Justice System - Essay Example

Punishment and Welfare in the Youth Justice System Historically, the debate over whether good practice in youth justice should reflect the punishment or welfare model has exercised policy-makers for over a century. From the 1960’s to the 1980’s, policy trends evolved toward the welfare model of punishment in which punishments are excluded, or are to be carefully adapted to the special needs of young people. In the 1980’s added attention was focused on juvenile offenders with policy makers instituting a stricter punishment-orientated juvenile justice system, for example, the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, which established the Youth Justice Board and reduced the age of prosecution to 10 years.1 Youth justice procedures in the 21st century are mixed, not clearly reflecting either the punishment or welfare model of corrections. The use of the reprimands and warnings system attempts to travel both tracks, being tough on adolescent crime while believing that young offenders can, more than adults, be influenced positively with guidance during the warning phase of punishment. It also involves police and parents in the discipline of youths. Both public and governmental opinion suggests the debate of the effectiveness of punishment or welfare has not been resolved. While the retributive nature of the past has paled away and the adult-involved, rehabilitative approach has become predominant in juvenile justice, many call for increased punishment methods intertwined with the system of reprimands and warnings. A majority of parents want corporal punishment to be reintroduced in schools to tackle what they perceive is an increasing problem of classroom disorder. According to a poll published by the Guardian in 2000, two-thirds of parents think discipline has declined over the past 10 years, while only one in 10 believe it has improved. “51 percent of parents think reintroduction of corporal punishment is the answer to the problem. Among working class parents, 60 percent are in favour, 40 percent among middle class parents.”2 Which type of methodology is the most effective and by what measure is an ever changing concept regarding? Those who argue that a welfare approach is more beneficial to society as well as the children point to a time of more relaxed punishment, between 1983 and 1993, when the proportion of 10 to 13-year-old boys who were found guilty or cautioned for more serious indictable offences dropped by 42 per cent, with a corresponding 15 per cent decline among 14 to 17-year-olds. Those that take the other side remind that in that same time period the types of offences most often committed by young people – such as burglary and taking vehicles – had risen dramatically.3 The current use of reprimands and warnings in the criminal justice system is the latest response to the balance of punishment and welfare models of corrections. To further understand these concepts, a history of these differing approaches should be understood as to clarify why this system is currently in use and what the future may hold for youth offenders. Until the sixties, the basic notion of the welfare system for youth offenders was hardly discussed. In 1895, the Gladstone Committee proposed the concept of separating youths from older men in adult prisons. Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise (1857-1935), a prison commissioner, introduced the system and the first institution was established in 1902 at Borstal Prison in Borstal, near Rochester in north Kent, England. Borstal was a juvenile detention centre or reformatory, an institution of the criminal justice system, intended to reform delinquent male youths aged between about 16 and 21. The name Borstal has since become synonymous with this system, a punishment model of discipline and reform. With a focus on education, routine, discipline and authority, the routine in these institutions was highly regulated. Breaking the rules could result in physical retribution, including corporal punishment of three types, “informal smacks on the spot for any misdemeanors, formal beating such as a caning imposed by (senior) staff for graver offences and, for the worst crimes such as severely abusing a staff member, the magistrate could impose the administration, by staff, of a birching (as in an adult prison, also on the bare buttocks), which because of its superior severity was frequently administered publicly, often in the gymnasium, strapped down naked over the vaulting horse, in front of the other boys to dissuade serious misbehaviour.”4 Borstal was a last resort for lads who had already been through a school system where discipline was strict, and backed up by corporal-punishment. The Borstal system was an extreme example of the punishment model of youth justice. It mirrored public opinion which was illustrated by the school’s methods of discipline of the time. Warnings were a quick swat on the behind while reprimands were harsh. Some are of the opinion that such methods should return. “I was caned two or three times when I was at school for minor offences. I took my punishment and it seemed fair. As far as I am concerned, it is a good form of punishment for boys which instills a sense of discipline. Generally discipline in schools has deteriorated since it was taken away. If a boy gets away with violence at school he will continue to get away with it throughout his life unless he is punished,” said Sir Rhodes Boyson, a former Conservative MP for Brent North and former headteacher.5 The Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 was the first major legislation directed toward the welfare model of justice for juveniles. It was the beginnings of the movement to protect of youth with the institution of child labor restrictions. It was also the beginnings of the reprimands and warnings system through its involvement of the parental responsibility. The Act preserved the standard that those 18 years and younger were to be incarcerated separately from adults. It also established that youths would not be executed and categorically acknowledged that no child under the age of eight could be guilty of any offence. This last provision has since changed (1963) to consider children 10 years of age or younger to be not guilty by reason of age. With this Act criminal offences were defined that were designed to punish those who employed children aged under 14 and/or participated in cruelty and exposure of children to moral and physical danger in respect of those under 16. Scotland followed suit in the protection of youth in 1937. Under the Children and Young Persons Act, the age of criminal responsibility under Scots Law was set at eight, where it remains to this day. Parents, however, could be held liable to criminal sanctions for willfully neglecting their children. In 1950, the Ingleby Committee was assembled to consider the operation of the juvenile court. Concerned about the judicial/welfare functions of the juvenile court, the committee recommended that the age of criminal responsibility be raised from eight to 12 years. Under the 1948 Children Act, it became the duty of a local authority to receive the child into care in cases of abuse or neglect. Local authorities gained powers to investigate neglect in 1952, and to take preventative action only in 1963.6 The 1969 Children and Young Persons Act prioritised welfare over punishment of young people in respect of court proceedings in particular. The trend was toward the welfare of children but schools and detention centres continued to practise the punishment form of discipline established by the Borstal philosophy. Remember, this philosophy was based on the regimes of late 19th century and early 20th century public schools, advocating military-style discipline (including widespread corporal punishment) and emphasising work training and skills acquisition. The Criminal Justice Act of 1982 eliminated the Borstal system, replacing it with a network of youth custody centres. In 1980 the White Paper Young Offenders proposed tougher detention centres for 14-21 year-olds. The Act also abolished imprisonment for the under 21 age group. The public sentiment at this time was reflected in the school system and its reforms of the 1970’s. Kounin’s Classroom Management Model (1970) for behaviours and discipline and Marland’s humanistic approach (1975) advocated spoken warnings in school discipline. They suggest very unlike Borstal concepts such as not addressing inappropriate behaviour from students in a way that would lead to public humiliation, defusing a confrontation by making light of the situation, finding the underlying causes of misbehaviour and not resorting to drastic measures in addressing a small transgression of the school’s code of conduct.7 In 1988, the Green Paper ‘Punishment, Custody and the Community’ set out its intention to expand the treatment of young offenders to older age groups, starting with 17 year-olds. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act, in tandem with Children Act 1989, continued its twin-track approach of punishment and welfare. “CJA changed the name of the Juvenile Court to the Youth Court and extended its jurisdiction to include 17 year-olds. §56 replaces the old 1933 power of the court to require the attendance of a parent/guardian at proceedings involving their children under the age of 16 with a duty to do so unless it would be unreasonable in the given circumstances. In the case of young people aged 16 and now also 17, the court has a power to require such attendance.”8 However, the abolishment of the Borstal method of punishment was not universally welcomed. The 1995 Prison Service Plan tipped the scale back to the punishment model by setting out its strategies for punishment which included introducing a pilot project for young offenders that provided a longer and more demanding regime through working. The 1997 White Paper ‘No More excuses – a new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales’ detailed proposals for reforming the youth justice system. It was designed to look at the idea of “engaging young offenders and their parents in focusing on offending behaviour; creating a youth court which was more open and commanded the confidence of victims and the public.”9 It also placed a stronger emphasis on using sentencing to prevent future offending. The aims were to be achieved through “encouraging magistrates to talk directly to young offenders and their parents; changes in the court layout and environment; promoting attendance by victims and the press; increasing feedback to magistrates. The impact of the project on the culture of the youth court, and especially the benefits of dialogue with defendants and their parents and of an approachable court layout and environment, have been recognised and welcomed.”10 Parental involvement, a cornerstone of the reprimands and warnings system, is increasingly popular and takes a step back toward the welfare model of youth justice. Parenting Orders can be given to the parents of young people who offend, are truant or who have received a Child Safety Order, Anti-Social Behaviour Order or Sex Offender Order. It lasts for 3 months, but can be extended to 12 months. It does not result in the parent/carer getting a criminal record. A parent who receives a Parenting Order will be required to attend counselling or guidance sessions. They may also have conditions imposed on them such as attending their childs school, ensuring their child does not visit a particular place unsupervised or ensuring their child is at home at particular times. A failure to fulfill the conditions can be treated as a criminal offence and the parent/carer can be prosecuted.11 The 1997 White Paper was a precursor to the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. This Act was a step toward both the punishment model and reprimands and warnings. The Act “abolished the common law presumption in that a child under 14 does not know the difference between right and wrong (previously clear and positive evidence of child understanding wrongness of actions was required).”12 It also required young offenders to make reparation either to the victim or the community, commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Restorative justice provides opportunities for those directly affected by an offence – victim, perpetrator and members of the community – to communicate and agree how to deal with the offence and its consequences. “Restorative Justice can be used at all stages of anti-social behaviour from the stage of early intervention to after enforcement action has been taken.”13 Reparation Orders gave courts powers to order parents to attend training and guidance sessions to control the behaviour of children who have committed a criminal offence or persistently truanted through a new Parenting Order. The 1998 Act included Anti-social Behaviour Orders, civil preventative orders through which a court order can be made with respect to a person aged 16 if they caused distress in the community. The aim of the orders was to take on serious, persistent but low-level disorder. These are civil, not criminal sanctions. “Also introduced Local Child Curfew Orders and Child Safety Orders as early intervention measures aimed at children under 10 years (i.e. below the age of criminal responsibility). Children under 10 who commit acts which would be an offence if they were criminally responsible or who break a Child Curfew Order are placed under social work.”14 In July of 1998, the Youth Justice Task Force reported on the treatment of different age groups and favoured “keeping 17 year-olds within the youth justice system. Fears were expressed that moving 17 year-olds to adult courts might also increase the numbers of 15/16 year-olds being tried in adult courts as co-defendants.”15 That same month, the Home Secretary office announced the Crime Reduction Programme providing funds for school projects relating to attendance, behaviour and extra support for those students at risk of exclusion. While the government attempted to make course corrections in balancing welfare and punishment modes of correction in the reprimands and warnings system, Parliament, at the same time, abolished corporal punishment in privately-funded schools. They had done the same in government-funded schools in 1986. Yet this wave of welfare model-type legislation is not universally accepted as the best method to preserve social order. “Families for Discipline, a pro-spanking lobby group, is considering appealing in European courts to defend the rights of parents to delegate to schools the authority to punish their children. Don Foster, education spokesperson for the Liberal Democratic Party said: ‘It is my clear view that corporal punishment is something that is wrong in principle, is barbaric and is inhuman.’”16 The Final Warning Scheme, introduced in 1998 and updated in 2002, contains a system of reprimands and final warnings for 10-17 year old offenders. There are different levels of warnings given to youths who behave in a disruptive manner to alert them to the impact and the consequences of their behaviour. “Warnings range from early intervention warnings (written or verbal) that can be given by any agency and have no direct legal consequences, up to formal warnings by the police (cautions for adults, reprimands and final warnings for juveniles) that are recorded and monitored and can lead to a criminal prosecution for persistent offenders. Such formal warnings will be taken into account by the court when deciding a sentence.”17 Depending on the seriousness of the offence, a reprimand is normally given for a first offence and a Final Warning for the second offence. If a young person who has been given a Final Warning commits a further offence he or she must be charged unless exceptional circumstances apply. A Final Warning goes much further than the caution. Following a Final Warning, the police have a statutory duty to refer the young offender to the Youth Offending Team (YOT). The YOT in turn has a statutory duty to carry out an assessment of the young offender and in most cases to provide an intervention programme aimed at preventing re-offending. This change in the reprimands and warnings system represents a shift towards the punishment model. “Research shows that effective intervention at the Final Warning stage significantly reduces the rate of re-offending. Even though a young person has to volunteer to take part in a Final Warning intervention, non-compliance may be used in any further criminal proceedings. The police decide whether or not a Final warning is appropriate. A Reprimand is given for a first offence not serious enough to merit a Final warning or prosecution, and when a young person has not already received a Reprimand on a prior occasion.”18 Penalty notices for disorder under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 are targeted at low-level anti-social offending. “Written or verbal warnings can be very effective in stopping people behaving anti-socially. By challenging all unacceptable behaviour immediately they establish clear standards of behaviour and reinforce the message that anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated.”19 Warnings describe the behaviour observed, inform the individual that the behaviour is anti-social and unacceptable, advise them that their behaviour is being monitored and warn that there will be further enforcement action if the behaviour does not cease. “In many cases, awareness of the impact of the behaviour on their neighbours and the threat of further enforcement can be a sufficient deterrent for an individual to change their behaviour.”20 Acceptable behaviour agreements or contracts are a model designed to engage the offending individual in acknowledging their anti-social behaviour and the effect it has on others. The agreement is made between the individual and their local authority, youth inclusion support panel, landlord or the police. “Acceptable behaviour agreements/contracts are not set out in law, and any agency is able to use and adapt the model. Although acceptable behaviour agreements/contracts have often been made with young people, it is a tool that can be used for any age. Their informal, flexible nature means they can be used for a variety of anti-social behaviours.”21 Although still relatively new, evidence suggests that the YOTs were developing into strong organisations and were fulfılling their role in preventing offending. Resources were being used effectively to address reoffending and to ensure the child or young person had complied with the conditions of their order or licence in the majority of cases. Action had been taken to address criminogenic needs and the initial ASSET score had reduced in over half the cases examined. “Only 26 percent of the cases examined had reoffended during the course of their contact with the YOT and 61 percent of the children and young people consulted during the inspection said that they had definitely stopped offending. When asked to say how the YOT had helped them: 12 percent of the children and young people said they felt better about themselves, 24 percent said they felt differently about offending, 10 percent felt they got on better with others, 14 percent said that their relations with their family had improved and only two of the 105 to respond did not feel that they had received any help.”22 Among young people in mainstream schools, there has been a significant shift in opinion on the different deterrents to offending in recent years. “The four most common reasons remain consistent with the 2003 findings, namely: 40 percent worry about how parents will react, 38 percent fear being caught, 23 percent fear being punished.”23 It is important for communities to set the standards of behaviour by which they expect people to live. It is also widely agreed that youth should be deterred from criminal activity through differing methods coming from adults that include intervention from local authorities and parents. As of 2004, Youth Offending Teams can apply to the magistrates court for a parenting order of a young person who has been referred to them. A child will not have to be convicted of an offence before a parenting order is made. “This will enable parents to be engaged in addressing their childs behaviour at an earlier stage. To grant an order the magistrates court needs to be satisfied that the child or young person has engaged in criminal conduct or anti-social behaviour making the order would be desirable in the interests of preventing further criminal conduct or anti-social behaviour.”24 Young Offender Institutions are regulated by the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, which are effectively the equivalent of the Prison Rules 1999 that apply to adult prisons in the UK. YOIs and juvenile establishments have the highest assault rates of any prisons in England and Wales. Young Offender Institutions (YOI) have historically been the target of criticism from both the public and Government. Problems at YOIs have included suicides, bullying and unsafe conditions for prisoners. Critics of YOIs argue that imprisonment is inappropriate for young people. “The majority of those in Young Offender Institutions have complex educational, social and often mental health needs, which critics say are often not addressed. Lack of resources and intimidating atmospheres are said to hamper rehabilitation work.”25 These critics make a case that the effect of incarceration has the opposite intended effect. “With little to occupy them and in the company of other offenders, detainees may be put on the road to a life of crime.”26 If a community’s standards of behaviour are to be credible and respected, it must be clear to all that prompt and effectual action will be taken. There are various stages at which different levels of intervention and enforcement are appropriate according to the persistent nature of offending. Children’s rights movements and other emancipating movements claim the protective juvenile justice systems neglect the specific juridical and cultural interests of children. Reprimands and warnings equate to trying the welfare method and hoping that it works, but if it doesn’t, punishment is to be handed out. The debate is where to draw the ever-moving lines of how much warning and for what severity crimes and what type of punishment. All countries struggle with the punishment and welfare balance and have tried to construct a kind of synthesis or compromise between two basic principles that are very hard to reconcile. “An offence demands a coercive and curbing approach. Penal law has the function to restore the juridic-moral order that was disturbed by the offence, to keep possible offenders from committing a crime by deterrence, and if possible, to reform the offenders. Moreover, the legal rules ensure the legality of the intervention, the correctness of the trial, and the proportionality of the sanction.”27 A minor is not yet an adult and as such is considered incapable of full responsibility while still subject to socialising. The penal law is not a deterrence to juveniles who don’t fully understand the consequences of their actions. “Moreover, it could cause negative effects on the socialising of the minor. The public reaction to an offence committed by a minor should, therefore, above all have an educative aim.”28 These punishment and welfare approaches are fundamentally irreconcilable however structured within the reprimands and warnings system of youth justice.29 In Belgium, for example, all punishment of minor delinquents have theoretically been abolished and all measures are called educative. In practice many educative measures are adopted with a reprimanding overtone. The consequence is not that a jurisdiction exists without punishment, but that punishment exists without legal safeguards.30 Contrary to what is sometimes pretended, judicious punishment cannot be compared to punishment in an educative or family situation. It is important to involve other partner agencies to determine whether the individual or their family is subject to any other investigations or support, or whether any such support may be required. The effectiveness of an educative punishment is connected to specific inherent and appropriate conditions which are far from being realised in the juvenile court systems. “The more explicit division between the administrative welfare approach and the judicial interventions raises questions about the legal rules when the administrative institution can impose coercive measures, and it seems to lead to an increased use of the regular penal law for minor delinquents. England seems to use a more explicit penal system for their youngsters with a more precise set of legal rules. But according to some criticisms this leads to exaggerated and ineffective punishment.”31 Contrary to this opinion, some of the most successful interventions are those that engage the individual in changing their own behaviour. “By ensuring that individuals understand the impact of their behaviour on the community, whilst offering the necessary support for them to stop, it is possible to achieve long-term change. Penalty notices can be the first stage of intervention for many forms of low-level disorder offences. They offer speedy and effective action that frees up police, local authority and court time.”32 They also ensure that all unacceptable behaviour is challenged. The offender receives an immediate punishment, which, if paid, will not result in a criminal record. Many factors contribute to antisocial activity in youth such as miscellaneous family problems, lack of educational achievement, unemployment, and alcohol and drug misuse. Accountability is the essence of the emerging attitude towards juveniles who offend. The reprimands and warnings system has spurred much debate as to its effectiveness. Some insist that punishment should be swift as to drive home a clear message to youth offenders and that this system leans too far to the welfare method of law enforcement. A first then second warning, police, parental and youth offending teams intervening, all the while no real punishments that produce lasting effects on the youth. So far the statistics point to a brighter outlook for the system according to Home Secretary David Blunkett. “Since 1997 overall crime has dropped by over a quarter and some crimes such as burglary and vehicle theft, by a third or more. Despite this many people perceive that levels of crime are high and more than one in three people consider that antisocial behaviour has a negative impact on their quality of life.”33 A reason for this, proponents of punishment offer, is the fact there are now more police officers and more police support staff than at any time in history. In addition, “we already have over 1,200 Community Support Officers (CSOs) patrolling our streets daily helping to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour and are on track to meet the target of having over 4,000 CSOs on the streets by the end of 2005.”34 Blunkett agrees with the notion of tougher punishment as it applies within the reprimands and warnings system. “We must be much tougher about forcing people not to behave anti-socially. When people break the rules, there must be consequences for them: consequences that are swift, proportionate and that change the pattern of their behaviour.”35 He went on to say the parliament will work together with those who are not prepared to tolerate people harassing and intimidating their neighbours or mistreating public spaces. “We will work with the police, local authorities and schools to ensure that one family is not allowed to ruin a whole street, or one child is not able to disrupt a whole school.”36 To move the pendulum slightly back to the punishment method, as many would do, Blunkett proposed to extend the fixed penalty notice scheme to include low level offences of criminal damage, and also enable notices to be issued to 16-17 year olds, who would be expected to pay their own fines. Also to improve the overall success rate for the collection of fines, currently at 60 percent, and make certain that punishment for an offence is accountable and responsive to the community by instituting a restorative justice strategy.37 Still, those that would favour being more welfare minded point to the lack of clear indications of an increase in juvenile delinquency and the dip in crime rate accounting for the welfare method’s success. Youth crime is not rising despite the school system falling short in its educative responsibilities and living conditions and employment prospects for young people are shifting in a downward direction. Criminologists point to the increase in opportunities to commit crimes, partly due to increasing attractive objects to be stolen such as audio equipment, videos, cars and other recreational equipment, yet we do not see noticeable results these factors in the crime statistics. The age of minority is used as a diminishment of guilt, as minors are considered less capable of understanding and willing to commit damage to society. This leads to reduction of punishments compared to those applicable to adults. Politicians as well as the public debate the continuous struggle with the very complex combination of the welfare versus the punishment approach in the judicial structure. Everywhere it shows that the systems have undergone a great deal of doctoring. It seems that the satisfactory solution to suit both arguments has not been found. Where the evolution of the punishment/welfare balance of the reprimands and warnings system is going to bring society is unknown. Welfare proponents fear that on the longer term the juvenile justice system will be abolished as is proposed in the U.S. This position reflects the impasse of the discussion on the punishment/welfare balance which has been going on since the establishment of the specialised juvenile justice system. Prevention of juvenile crime is a very difficult issue. In every country, prevention is an embodiment of youth criminal policies but the concepts of prevention have been changing dramatically in the last decades. Disciplinary prevention of the past gave way to a more welfare-based system and has since shifted the other way. Historically, prevention-based discipline was based on threats of horrendous punishments. From the end of the last century onwards, the rise of criminology, as an etiological behavioural science, supposes that the delinquent was not a rational but rather an ill person. Threatening with punishments, thus, would not keep him from committing crimes, that criminal inclinations had to be detected and treated at an early stage which is the premise of today’s system. There is a movement to make decisions about young offenders in a forum that prioritises problem solving over punishment and makes appropriate use of measures that make reformations to victims. Alternatives to prison are constantly being sought as the long-term effects of incarceration rather than integration into society may cause psychological damage to the young person. The answer, as some would say, is education and awareness and that compassion, kindness and consideration for others can be taught. The welfare oriented opinion suggests that only a small fraction of offenders are truly conduct disordered, or anti-social and the majority of juvenile offenders are actually decent young men and women who, at present, lack specific skills relative to problem-solving and decision-making. These individuals need regular and frequent skills training in stopping and thinking through their actions before acting – especially when they are bored, angry or insecure. Another may say that youth have an education and are quite aware. They dont believe there is a single vandal who doesnt know that what theyre doing is illegal and causes others grief and that education and awareness have nothing to do with criminal activity. Youth still take fully conscious decisions to commit these illegal acts. They have full control of the mind that instructs the body to smash a window, vandalise a phone etc. Since the community doesn’t control their minds, society must remove those who are incapable of living peacefully. The balance of punishment and welfare methods within the warnings and reprimands system is an ever adjusting scale of offering support, assistance, education and assuming that this will bring about more commitment to social values and norms, versus controlling and punishing, while still safeguarding elementary legal rights and common sense involving youth. It’s a balancing act that sways back and forth between the philosophies with societal opinion. Some suggest that we go back to the days of the Borstal system with a good whacking as the first warning. Others insist that this is tantamount to criminal brutality itself and believe a complex system of warnings and counseling is the future of a properly ordered society. Different countries set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at varying levels. In England and Wales the welfare approach is mostly the rule for youths age 16 and below and the punishment approach the exception. There are a great variety of age categories in the criminal justice system which varies over time and nationalities which attempt to respond adequately to the transitional period between the child, presumed to be innocent and not punishable, and the adult, presumed to be responsible and punishable. The judicial system is an indication of the confusion in finding a reasonable balance in the warnings and reprimands system. This system, although swayed toward welfare as compared to 100 years ago, utilizes both punishment and welfare methods fueling an ongoing debate which will evolve with prevalent public opinion and legislation. The youth justice procedures in the 21st century do not clearly reflect either method. There is no right answer when all relevant information is dissected and studied as this paper has attempted to demonstrate. Footnotes 1 Criminal Disorder Act. (1998). Chapter 37. Crown Stationary Office. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 2 Carvel, John. (8 January 2000). “Parents Call for Schools to Bring Back the Cane.” The Guardian. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 3 Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2005). “Findings Social Policy Research 1993 – April 1996.” Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 4 Grohol, John M. (2006). “Borstal.” Psych Central. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 5 Carvel, (2000). 6 Robert Gordon University. (n.d.). “The Personal Social Services: Social Work and Social Care.” An Introduction to Social Policy. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from < http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/pss.htm> 7 Electronic Building Blocks Technology. (n.d.). “Classroom Management.” Learning Theories. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 8 Bell, Robert & Jones, Gill. (n.d.). “Youth, Parenting and Public Policy: A Chronology of Policy and Legislative Provisions.” Keele University. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 9 Scott, Annabella. (2004). “The Youth Court Demonstration Project.” Judicial Studies Board. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 10 Scott, (2004). 11 Youth Justice Board. (n.d.). “Parenting Order.” Sentences. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 12 “Supporting Victims and Witnesses.” (n.d.). Together Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 13 “Supporting Victims and Witnesses,” (n.d.). 14 “Criminal Justice.” (n.d.). Youth Policies in the UK: A Chronological Map. Keele University. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 15 “Criminal Justice,” (n.d.). 16 Robinson, B.A. (7 April 2005). “Corporal Punishment of Children: Spanking.” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 17 Together. (n.d.). “Warnings and Agreements.” Working Together, p. 3. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 18 McGrath, Sue. (March 2003). “Youth Justice Reference Guide.” Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, p. 5. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 19 Together, (n.d.), p. 3. 20 Together, (n.d.), p. 3. 21 Together, (n.d.), p. 3. 22 Bridges, Andrew. (2004). “Joint Inspection of the Youth Offending Teams: The First Phase Annual Report.” Youth Offending Team, p. 19. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from . 23 Mori. (July 2004). “Youth Survey 2004.” Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from . 24 “Application by the YOT for a Parenting Orders for Anti-Social and Criminal Conduct.” (2004). Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 25 CYC Net. (18 May 2005). “What is a Young Offender Institution?” Viewpoint. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 26 CYC Net, (2005). 27 Walgrave, Lode & Mehlbye, Jill. (August 1998). “Confronting Youth in Europe: Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice.” Institute of Local Government Studies. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 28 Walgrave, Mehlbye, (1998). 29 Walgrave, Mehlbye, (1998). 30 Hudson, B. (1987). Justice Through Punishment. London: McMillan. 31 Hudson, (1987). 32 Together, (n.d.) 33 Blunkett, David. (March 2003). “Respect and Responsibility: Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behavior.” Home Office White Paper, p. 7. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from 34 Blunkett, (2003), p. 7. 35 Blunkett, (2003), p. 5. 36 Blunkett, (2003), p. 5. 37 Blunkett, (2003), p. 10. References “Application by the YOT for a Parenting Orders for Anti-Social and Criminal Conduct.” (2004). Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Bell, Robert & Jones, Gill. (n.d.). “Youth, Parenting and Public Policy: A Chronology of Policy and Legislative Provisions.” Keele University. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Blunkett, David. (March 2003). “Respect and Responsibility: Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behavior.” Home Office White Paper. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Bridges, Andrew. (2004). “Joint Inspection of the Youth Offending Teams: The First Phase Annual Report.” Youth Offending Team, p. 19. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from . Carvel, John. (8 January 2000). “Parents Call for Schools to Bring Back the Cane.” The Guardian. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Criminal Disorder Act. (1998). Chapter 37. Crown Stationary Office. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from “Criminal Justice.” (n.d.). Youth Policies in the UK: A Chronological Map. Keele University. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from CYC Net. (18 May 2005). “What is a Young Offender Institution?” Viewpoint. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Electronic Building Blocks Technology. (n.d.). “Classroom Management.” Learning Theories. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Grohol, John M. (2006). “Borstal.” Psych Central. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Hudson, B. (1987). Justice Through Punishment. London: McMillan. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2005). “Findings Social Policy Research 1993 – April 1996.” Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from McGrath, Sue. (March 2003). “Youth Justice Reference Guide.” Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, p. 5. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Mori. (July 2004). “Youth Survey 2004.” Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from . Robert Gordon University. (n.d.). “The Personal Social Services: Social Work and Social Care.” An Introduction to Social Policy. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from < http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/pss.htm> Robinson, B.A. (7 April 2005). “Corporal Punishment of Children: Spanking.” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Scott, Annabella. (2004). “The Youth Court Demonstration Project.” Judicial Studies Board. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from “Supporting Victims and Witnesses.” (n.d.). Together Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Together. (n.d.). “Warnings and Agreements.” Working Together, p. 3. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Walgrave, Lode & Mehlbye, Jill. (August 1998). “Confronting Youth in Europe: Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice.” Institute of Local Government Studies. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Youth Justice Board. (n.d.). “Parenting Order.” Sentences. Retrieved 3 February 2006 from Read More