Youth Incarceration in the UK - Essay Example

Running Head: Youth Incarceration in UK Youth Incarceration in UK [Institute’s Youth Incarceration in UK Since few decades, a rapid increment is observed in the rate of youth incarceration in the United Kingdom that has affected hundreds of families associated with these youth offenders. Although it is necessary to handle lawbreakers in a punitive manner, studies have indicated that child imprisonment has not been very significant in achieving its objective of reducing the rate of youth crime. On contrary, crime rate has been increased with increase in the number of youth offenders confronting remand, custody, or detention. In specific, this paper will discuss different aspects of youth incarceration, especially in the context of Youth Justice System of the United Kingdom, and will endeavor to analyze available options of tackling youth offenders. It is a fact that every government has been giving significant importance to youth crime, in order to eliminate anti-social agents from the society from its roots; however, none has been able to achieve such objective due to a number of factors, such as unemployment, poverty, etc. On contrary, youth prison population has increased dramatically that has resulted in extreme criticism, as effects of youth imprisonment do not affect young offenders only, but families and communities as well. According to the UK government, (Home Office, 2008) tough penalties for young offenders cannot be avoided, as it is essential for a safe and healthy society; however, studies have observed that these tough and punitive penalties and custodies have resulted in contrary results, rather than allowing offenders to recover and break their offending cycle. Although steps are being taken to prevent young individuals from falling into this black hole; however, youth imprisonment presently seems to be the only option that is taken as effective, regardless its adversities. Policymakers believe that innocent public stays protected by custody and imprisonment sentences to young offenders; however, it is an agreeable fact that punishment confronted by young offenders in prisons results in isolation from society that is adverse for children according to a number of child psychologists. Studies have noted that children are unable to acquire proper guidance in custody and remand and end up with getting opinions from wrong people, such as serious criminals and offenders, which seems to be quite true with the fact that a majority of youth offenders are convicted after two years of going from the police custody. In the past, local services used to coordinate with magistrates, and after confirming presence of specific youth offender as inappropriate in community, that particular individual was given a custody or remand sentence. In this respect, community services used to tackle young offenders by indulging them in community services that is an effective means of punishing youth offenders. However, such practice has become very rare due to lack of resources and support of community services, which has resulted in majority of young offenders getting custody or remand sentences, and thus, has increased the youth crime rate in the United Kingdom. According to Criminal Justice System of the United Kingdom, safety of all members of its society is one of the most significant responsibilities of its controlled and fair system. However, it seems like the justice system has failed in fulfilling the mentioned social responsibility. In England and Wales alone, more than fifty thousand young individuals are sent in policy custody or prisons every year. According to statistics for the year 2006, more than 6,000 young offenders were given non-custodial sentences. In the United Kingdom, more than fifteen percent of custody population is made up by young offenders below 21 years of age. (Home Office, 2008) Experts have noted that such population of youth in remand or custody has resulted in increment of homelessness, unemployment, lack of education, and a number of similar confrontations in the United Kingdom, and thus, government and policymakers should come up with an effective solution rather than incarcerating youth. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is the respected standard practiced in a number of criminal justice systems around the globe. However, such practice seems to have vanished in the United Kingdom Criminal Justice System, especially when it comes to tackling youth offenders. (Muncie, 2004) Ineffectiveness of youth incarceration has been a widespread actuality, which can be understood by studying different real-life examples. As earlier mentioned, majority of young offenders discharged from custody, remand, or offender institutes have been back again within two years. In other words, youth incarceration does not seem to be working at all. However, instead of planning any other effective option, new prison places are being announced by Home Office in the United Kingdom, as last year, announcement of more than 7000 prison places was published by Office of the Home Secretary, in order to deal with over-population of youth offenders. Moreover, new policies have also been introduced by the UK government to tackle youth offenders by introducing harsh and longer sentences. Experts have noted that if growth of youth offenders continues usually, these new prisons will not be enough to handle offenders that are being built at a cost of £0.1 million. (Home Office, 2008) On the other hand, construction of community centers would have cost half the mentioned expenses that have played an effective and constructive role in rehabilitating lives of youth offenders according to a number of studies. In the year 2005, (Ireland, pp. 114, 2005) a study was carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of youth imprisonment in the United Kingdom, and few young offenders were interviewed. In specific, offenders from Feltham Young Offender Institute were selected for the study. It was identified during the study that some participants had not even committed the crime, but were sent to custody for months. Majority of individuals were involved in cases of assault and mugging, and most of them did it due to racism in their neighborhood. It was indicated by the participants that months of even years passed in custody or prison affected their lives adversely, rather than improving them. Moreover, it was found by researchers that family, friends, and people in neighborhood were no longer supportive and cooperative with these offenders, even if some of them were find not guilty in their cases. In the result, a majority of these young individuals end up with wrong people that brought them back in custody or remand. Child psychologists have found out that child imprisonment results in stigmatization and when nobody comes to help, they are not able to trust anyone around them, and prefer isolating them from innocent public of the society. (Ireland, pp. 19-20, 2005) In this regard, youth incarceration in the United Kingdom has now become a cause of production of real criminals for the society, which is often not accepted by the policymakers that are quite aggressive in terms of tackling young offenders through their incarceration. In the year 2004, a study was carried out to evaluate the treatment in youth prisons and young offending institutes in the United Kingdom, and it was indicated by results that some institutes were even planning to build emergency care rooms due to cruel and violent handling and treatment of young offenders in these institutes. Moreover, some young offenders complained of being threatened by other young criminals, as well as, staff of the prisoners, which is a sign of ineffectiveness of youth incarceration, (Ireland, pp. 63-67, 2005) and thus, it is very essential to plan an effective means of tackling youth offenders. In this respect, the Youth Justice Board has been held responsible for such ineffectiveness of youth justice system, as it is the responsibility of Youth Justice Board to prevent any re-offending of young individuals, as well as, assuring their safe and secure custody and incarceration. In this regard, approximately £250 million was spent by the Youth Justice Board in the year 2006 to purchase new lands for juvenile offending institutes and securing these places for young offenders. However, a minimal percent of budget was used on community-based programs that have been very effective, as compared with custody or remand. Some of the experts have observed that the Youth Justice Board is endeavoring to eliminate or reduce the causes of youth crime by announcing new juvenile offending institutes and tough punitive sentences, which has not prevented, but promoted young offenders to become real criminals. Remands and custodies are playing a worsening role to damage the society, rather than protecting it from crimes. One of the significant reasons of such ineffectiveness of youth incarceration is that it impedes the learning process provided by means of education, available in community-based centers. Moreover, family is the major factor that prevents individuals from offending again. Unfortunately, incarceration eradicates any chances of family contact, which results in isolation and causes re-offending. In other words, young offenders confront stigmatization and become aliens, which can be prevented by giving them community-based punishments, rather than incarcerating them. In another study, (Ireland, pp. 67-69, 2005) it was admitted by one of the governors of youth prison in London that young offenders are mostly sent to custody or on remand, in order to protect innocent public in the society and to keep the balance sociologically, rather than with the motive of punishing offenders to improve their lives. In this regard, it is very inappropriate to incarcerate young offenders for the fulfillment of sociological requirements, as prisons should be built for the fulfillment of criminological needs of the system. For instance, creation of new roads does not result in the reduction of cars; however, it allows new users to bring their cars out on the roads easily, which reduces difficulties of traffic controllers. Similarly, youth incarceration has not been effective in reducing the number of young lawbreakers; however, it has resulted in production of real criminals by providing youth a platform of interaction with other offenders. In the year 2003, a constitutional assumption was implemented by the Criminal Justice Act that introduced a snowball effect by promising more harsh sentences on successive appearances in courts by young offenders. Some of the offenders that confronted harsh sentences from this Act complained that it does not help them in anyway, even when they were determined to break their offending cycle. In other words, prison is not a place for rehabilitation, especially for young individuals. (Muncie, 2004) Moreover, experts have noted that young offenders often confront wrong decisions in their court appearances, and their successive appearance results in crueler sentences of incarceration. In this regard, this Act has confronted a number of criticisms from legal professionals due to its inappropriate assumption that ignores evidence required for proving someone guilty. In 1980s, remand and custody sentences for young offenders were greatly reduced due to implementation of policies of government at that time. According to these policies, magistrates were not allowed to give prison remand sentences to female offenders below seventeen years of age. In the year 1991, this policy was implemented for male offenders below 17 years as well. (Muncie, 2004) Alternatively, the system introduced local authority units to protect the society from young offenders that focused more on treatment and psychoanalysis, rather than incarcerating them for sociological needs. However, this effective change was unable to cater all the young offenders due to lack of appropriate accommodation, and thus, a minute percent of children were sent to prisons. This loophole resulted in its abolishment. Previously, local authorities were playing a significant role, as they were contacted by magistrates before sending any offender to prisons, and their application for prison custody was necessary to send a young criminal for incarceration. However, abolishment of such rule allowed courts to give prison sentences directly without any coordination with local authorities. However, in the year 1998, the Crime and Disorder Act was introduced by the Labor Government, which resulted in the formation of young offending teams that were responsible for youth justice related services. However, such teams were ineffective as well due to their focal point on incarceration. Ineffectiveness of youth incarceration was cemented, as relaxation was observed in the criteria that were previously necessary to fulfill before prison custody. In such criteria, courts were required to carry out tests to evaluate the decision-making capability of young offenders, as whether they were aware of their acts or not. However, relaxation in such criteria allowed courts to put children on remand directly without carrying out any tests. In the year 2003, justification of prison sentences was not required from courts anymore, and defendants were now required to prove irrelevance of their remand by passing of Criminal Justice Bill in late 2003. (Omaji, pp. 31-32, 2003) During all these years, the UK Criminal Justice System, and especially the Youth Justice Board have confronted a number of criticisms due to continuation of youth imprisonment even after understanding its ineffectiveness. In the year 2004, UN committee visited and evaluated different youth offending institutes and prisons and found out that means of education was not focused by the UK Youth Justice Board, and indicated that prisons were overuse by giving longer prison sentences to young offenders. (Ireland, pp. 59-64, 2005) In other words, it was indicated that young individuals were not rehabilitated, rather stigmatized in prisons, which is not an efficient way of tackling young offenders in a society. Even after criticisms and UN reports, Youth Justice Board has been incarcerating hundreds of young offenders every year. On contrary, it is observed that a positive difference can be made by community-based sentences. A number of countries have regulated their courts to prefer community sentences, rather than incarceration while handling youth crime. A community-based punishment allows an individual to continue his education while spending time with his family, and doing community work during his punishment period. However, studies have noted that community support services lack a number of resources from appropriate accommodation, as well as, work force required to tackle youth crime in an efficient manner. In the past, similar ineffectiveness and lacking of community centers were indicated by the Youth Justice Audit Commission (Omaji, pp. 23-25, 2003) that admitted that community-based sentences were more cheaper and constructive, as compared with imprisonment; however, they lack resources require to run these programs effectively. A cost comparison of community-based center and young offending institution indicated that former one costs approximately £9,000, whereas, the latter costs more than £25,000 for a period of six months for a single young offender, which shows that a community-based sentence can play a vital role in saving a huge amount in the budget of Youth Justice Board. (Pickford, pp. 263-268, 2000) However, it is essential that causes of youth crime should be tackled and focused more diligently before sending children in prisons. It is a fact that youth crime cannot be tolerated, and young offenders should not be ignored, but it is also essential that factors responsible for such crimes should be reduced and eliminated. According to the Home Office, the United Kingdom confronts a cost of one billion pound every year in handling and tackling youth crime. In this regard, the British economy can benefit significantly, if proper and efficient steps are taken to reduce such a huge cost of youth crime. Moreover, statistics have noted that youth justice system welcomes more than 50,000 young offenders below 18 years of age every year in the United Kingdom. Present cost of sending and tackling a prisoner in young offender institution is approximately above £50,000 annually. However, it will take a minute percent of this amount to punish youth through community-based prospects that may not deteriorate their emotional state, as observed in incarceration. Recently, Youth Crime Action Plan has been introduced by the HM Government, which has endeavored to tackle young offenders in a more effective manner. (HM Government, 2008) This plan has continued with the approach of tough sentences; however, has focused significantly on the prevention of crimes by providing assistance to affected families and involvement of young offenders in schools, healthcare services, etc. Children’s Trust is now responsible for the implementation of all such social responsibilities, such as targeted youth support services in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the plan has introduced parenting orders through Anti Social Behavior Order that will ensure fulfillment of responsibilities by parents as well, which is an effective means of tackling young offenders. According to the plan, courts will be required to give community-based punishments; however, unrelenting offenders will be given tough sentences. Moreover, custodial sentences will include coordination with local authorities to provide education and healthcare facilities to offenders, in order to tackle these young people in the most efficient manner. The Youth Rehabilitation Order (HM Government, pp.8, 2008) has also been introduced by the plan, which will allow courts to give healthy community sentence to young offenders. Another effective introduction to tackle youth crime is Referral Order, which will ensure signing of a contract by youth offender with their parents to reverse the effects of his/her actions by behaving kindly with victims and family members, which is a zero-cost and one of the most significant introductions in this plan. An Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Program has also been a part of Youth Crime Action Plan 2008, in which, persistent and real young criminals will be tagged electronically upon their bailout or local authority remand. Once again, Youth Offending Teams are part of this strategic move towards tackling young offenders effectively; however, it is hoped that these teams will be focusing on rehabilitation, rather than incarceration, which has been the motive of previous teams, as discussed earlier in the paper. The plan has considered causes and factors of youth crime, such as unemployment, poverty, and racism particularly, which will result in reduction of youth incarceration in the United Kingdom. Additionally, approximately a hundred million pounds (HM Government, pp.7, 2008) will be made available for the implementation of these regulations mentioned in the Youth Action Plan 2008. Although it will take a longer time to achieve these objectives; however, it is essential that community members should play a supportive role in the implementation of such regulations, which are effective alternatives to youth incarceration, which is an expensive and deteriorating means of tackling youth offenders in a society. Conclusively, the paper has discussed some of the significant aspects of youth incarceration in context of the United Kingdom Youth Justice System and Youth Justice Board, which are playing a vital and crucial role in tackling young offenders in different parts of the Great Britain. It has been indicated by a number of studies that youth incarceration is not an effective means of tackling young offenders, and such imprisonment results in adversity and production of real criminals for future generations. Introduction of Youth Crime Action Plan 2008 seems like another endeavor of the UK government to deal diligently with youth crime, and it is hoped that this effort will be practiced in the same manner, as it has theoretically been published. It is hoped that the paper will be beneficial for students, teachers, and professionals in better understanding of the topic. References HM Government. (2005). Reducing Re-offending through Skills and Development. London: Ministry of Justice Press. HM Government. (2008). Youth Crime Action Plan 2008. London: Ministry of Justice Press. Home Office. (2008). Youth Crime. Retrieved on November 29, 2008; http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/youth-crime Jane L. Ireland. (2005). Bullying Among Prisoners. UK: Willan Publishing. Jane Pickford. (2000). Youth Justice. UK: Routledge. John Muncie. (2004). Youth and Crime, Second Edition. London: Sage. Paul Omaji. (2003). Responding to Youth Crime. London: Hawkins Press. Total Words: 3081 Words Read More