Reducing the Crime Rate - Essay Example

Account for the increasing number of children incarcerated in the UK. Is this an effective means to tackle youth offending? Introduction: In the context of reducing crime rate, imprisonment of criminals is still an effective means in the hands of an administration of a nation to control the rate of crime. However, when the same policy is adopted in case of children, adolescents or youths, it may prove to be an effective way to control the increasing rate of youth crime but at the same time, in the longer run, it helps neither the youth psychologically nor the administration is benefitted under any circumstances. In the preface to their report, Narco has suggested “…how youth custody has risen sharply since the early 1990s, without any corresponding increase in the volume or seriousness of youth crime. The increase in incarceration is simply a result of more punitive sentencing and remand decisions. At the same time, depriving children of their liberty is ineffective in terms of preventing further offending, is expensive and does incalculable damage to young people who are already among the most vulnerable in society – a point tragically confirmed by the death of two children in custodial establishments during 2004.” (Narco, 2005, p. 1) It is clear from such observation that though there has not been any such change at the rate of criminal activities in the socio-cultural backdrop of the United Kingdom, but the administration, as it has witnessed through its previous experience that, random imprisonment of children helps in cutting the rate of criminal offence down, that is why they are still sticking to the system. Such random process of child incarceration, though its is considered to be effective but in real life is not only results in tremendous psychological problems to the youth section of the society but at the same time they are also exposed to the risk of being abused or molested by criminal minded persons. Consequently, they either remain as psychological patients for the rest of their lives or they develop extremely hostile mentality against the society that provides them also with a criminal bent of mind. Statistics of 2004 shows that 205 youths, who were below 15 years of age were taken under custody and three of them, namely, Gareth Price (16), Gareth Myatt (15) and Adam Rickwood (14), expired unfortunately during their tenure in the custody. (Narco, 5005, p, 1) Such incidents bear enough evidence to show that in the name of justice or controlling crime what actually is happening is exploitation of the youth force of a nation and the administration is actually dragging the youth section to such a situation, where they are not only been compelled to face social ignominy but also with their desperate effort to attain social recognition they are either getting deep into the dark world or crime or destroying themselves, finding no other way to make situation better for them. How it Affects a Youth: Though it is unfortunate, but the reality is that no matter how much we talk about social liberation and understanding the problems of youth psychology but our society has not reached the expected level of progress. Even today if an individual, one is taken into custody by the police, without knowing or judging over the actual condition, that person is considered to be a criminal in the eyes of society. In case of matured people the situation can be handled because they have the rationality or stubbornness of mind to deal with these problems. In case of a child, or an adolescent it becomes extremely tough because it is from this phase of his/her life he/she actually stars seeing the world in a newer way. Once such an unfortunate incident happens, the person sees how his/her most acquainted people, situations, faces and ambiances are changing. It becomes really hard to accept for the individual to accept such dynamic changes around him/her at such tender stage of his/her psychological change. Once a youth undergoes such criminal prosecution, it is not him/her only who is affected by at the same time people who are close to that person, are also affected or become subjects of inquisitive questioning. Consequently, they also feel that because of one’s mistake they all have become subjects of humiliation and they start avoiding as well as accusing that person for his/her unintentional actions. On one hand convicted is already under tremendous psychological pressure that needs to be recovered through support from the nearest people but in actuality, most of the cases we see that the person has been suppressed and simply left alone to face the trauma, social isolation and endure all these tortures that either he/she identifies himself/herself responsible for all these happenings or he revolts against the ongoing trend of social negligence through choosing the path of crime and inflicting torture over people. Hence, it is the high time for us to think what we actually are doing in the name of youth crime control? Ultimately, we are leading our children to such a position where they do not find any positive support from us. Their lives are either ending through self-destruction or they are slowly poisoning themselves with the vice of crime. Observing such plight of children Lord Carlile of Berriew QC voiced his words against the ongoing administrative trend of child incarceration, “Child crime can only be cut effectively if we are courageous enough to recognise the failings of present provision and look for the widest range of noncustodial alternatives.” (Lord Carlile; Narco, 2005, p. 1) Youth and the tradition of Punishment Every nation in different ages has spoken about words of glory about the youth section of the society. In the real plain, the kind of treatment that the young people have faced, however, that does not match with such glorified presentation in any ways. The political arena, irrespective of both developing and developed nations, generally consider that youth section of the society are mostly responsible for all kinds of disturbances at the internal social plain of the nation. It is due to such belief that the administration mostly takes overtly precautional measures while dealing with youth section of the society. Unfortunately, such precuational measures are, on most of the occasions, are executed in the wrong manner rather than in a positive way. Since the 1990 onwards, a dynamic social change has been observed in the United Kingdom that was especially directed against the youth and it is more astonishing to find explicit approval of the legislative body of UK to take such step, “…since 1992, the number of children sentenced to custody has risen dramatically by almost 90%, and youth crime has fallen by more than a quarter. The development of a punitive attitude towards children who offend which underpinned the rise was exemplified by John Major’s contention that society should ‘condemn a little more and understand a little less’.” (Narco, 2005, p. 1) The actual reason is not very clear that why the ex- Prime Minister commented over realizing a little less about feelings of the youth and condemn them as much as possible but we do not face any trouble in realizing the fact that the State has desperately adopted hostile approach against the youths. It is also not clear that why we forget the fact that youthful time is the time of spontaneity and less prudent approach. It is quite natural that during this phase of life an individual will commit mistake and sometimes those mistakes might breach the limits of other people’s rights. However, it does not mean that the child or the youth has actually intended to commit such crime. If their problems can be viewed from a more sympathetic perspective then the situation would not have been as complicated as that of today. Though the State has often boosted itself over the motive that they actually intend to rectify youth from their tendencies to commit crime, but in this context we can cite observation of Justice Munby as he specifies, “They ought to be – I hope they are – matters of the greatest concern to the Prison Service, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and, indeed, to society at large. For these are things being done to children by the State – by all of us – in circumstances where the State appears to be failing, and in some instances failing very badly, in its duties to vulnerable and damaged children ….” (Goldson, Muncie, 2006, p. 148) This observation clearly states that not only administration is responsible but at the same time society is also responsible to encourage the State to take arbitrary actions against the children. Approval of the society to inflict corporal punishment against youth is one of the brightest examples to encourage such observation. Traditionally the belief has been encouraged by people and religion is also responsible for encouraging development of such belief among individuals. According to the Biblical references, it is widely considered that Devil possesses every individual, as man is born with the Original Sin as he tested the Forbidden Fruit in the Garden of Eden. Later on, man’s approach towards attaining the grace of led to the belief that purification through the path of suffering is the only way to triumph over the devilish features of an individual. Thus, religion set various codes of conduct or manner for an individual and it also suggested that a person, who is illuminated with god’s enlightenment, will automatically follow these code of conducts and those who will defy such rules, will automatically be considered as the a devil incarnated figure. Though children are considered as purest of human beings and reflection of God’s enlightenment, but at the same time, there were other beliefs too that regard children, having all the basic elements of original sin and devilish possession. Such humane vices are reflected through their misbehaving and disobedient nature. It apparently seems in the modern scenario that such traditional beliefs have faded to oblivion but till date “Many parents…believe in a modern version of original sin – the willful or stubborn child. Almost all contemporary American parents believe that spanking sometimes necessary for child’s own good.” (Straus, Donnelly, 2001, p. 3) Corporal punishment is often regarded as one of the methods by which a child can be taught the proper manners to live on the societal plain. Irrespective of the social structure, the greatest irony of corporal punishment is that no matter how pervasive it is, but it remains invisible in the as far as the society is concerned. There are two main reasons for such non-exposure as most of the children are subjects to corporal punishment and people do not express much of their concern over the problems that a child suffers due to such reasons. Due to application of such punishment these children are developing a kind of subconscious antagonist feeling against their parents; thus, a psychological distance is developed between parents and children. Childhood and adolescence are very important periods in the life of an individual as he/she incorporates all those elements, which act as the foundation of psychology and depending over that psychology they act accordingly in their future life. At this point of time, they need a great deal of emotional support from their parents but they in most of the cases they do not receive it. Today, across the world, criminal intentions, self-destructive approaches and depressive fits among children are on a hike, as most of the children are not receiving adequate amount of psychological and emotional support from their close ones, including their parents. To makes the situation better for children, people need to understand that “…corporal punishment has no consequence besides its immediate disciplinary purpose or the larger purpose of making the child obedient in general. But reality is different.” (Straus, Donnelly, 2001, p. 4) The main reason to put emphasis over the tradition of corporal punishment is that it shows how children have been deprived of their basic rights to enjoy the good things of the earth spontaneously. Failure of the State to provide proper protection to a child is evident but at the same time it also becomes clear from such observation that parents, who are considered to be closest supporters of a child in times of his/her bad moments, also act in an unexpected manner. It is normal that a child will not act in the manner that the society has set for us but it is also true that there are other ways also to teach a child to act in the manner that he/she is expected to. Punishing or inflicting torture over the child is not the only option. Empathy, support and friendliness are the factors that can create differences in the attitude of a child towards the society but people believe that inflicting torture is the only way that can civilize a child to act in the manner that he/she is actually expected to. Though such realization is developed from basic social level but such realization has spread through different levels of the society, of which the legislative or administrative parts are also not excluded. These are certain flaws that have been inserted at the psychological plain of the people to such extent that those have taken form of an establishment or institution at the psychical level of the common people. No matter how hard they try, it becomes almost impossible for them to get rid of such feelings. Thus, “Despite all of the evidences in respect of the damaging and harmful impositions of penal custody on children, excessive practices of child imprisonment in England and Wales continue,” (Goldson, Muncie, 2006, p. 149) Legal Defense of Youth in Commission of Unintended Crimes: The dynamic social transformation since the 20th century onwards has created a lot of changes at the level of common people’s understand and their realization or interpretation of a particular subject. Compared to adults, the youth section of the society has been affected more and they are always at the high risk of being exploited. It is due to this reason their involvement in the criminal acts, both intentionally and unintentionally, is higher than common social trend. Though compared to 1992, in the year 1999 there has been considerable fall in the youth crime rate but at the same time the existing statistics is still not very encouraging, “…between 1992 and 1999, 10–17 year olds convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence fell from 143,400 to 120,400; for those under 21 years, the decline over the same period was from 278,900 to 208,700…. the British Crime Survey for the year 2000 also shows an overall decrease in victimisation of 15% during the period 1995 to 1999.” (Narco, July 2001, p. 2) Though there has been a steady decline in the rate of commission of crime but at the same time there is no denial of the truth that a lot of offences occur for which the youths are prosecuted according to the legal norms but those actions do not actually involve the motive of committing such crimes. If they are provided with prop0er support and both legal as well as social assistance to get rid of such condition it could have been possible to include them in the normal course of the society but unfortunately, they have been deprived from such opportunity. However, the English law has clearly specified in its legal provisions that a person cannot be prosecuted under criminal act unless actions of the person involve enough evidence of the presence of mens rea or clear motive to commit such act. “The mens rea concept expresses a belief that people should be punished … only when they have acted with an intent or purpose that makes them morally blameworthy.” (Bergman, Berman, Berman-Barrett, 2008, p. 253) If properly investigated, then actions of the youths that are considered to be criminal in nature will be found that most of the actions do not involve the element of mens rea or specific intent. According to the basic principles of criminal law in the English legal jurisprudence an act, which does not comprise the elements of mens rea, it cannot be said that the act was actually performed with any criminal intention. In this context we find there are two situations, each of which contains the probability of including mens rea. However, it is important at the first place to analyze the actus reus which will lead us to the position of realizing if the acts include elements of criminal mind (mens rea) or not. Famous English jurist Edward Coke, in the context of identifying criminal intention of a person laid down the principle of “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” (Coke, 1853, L.3, C.6. Sect. 406) which means, “The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so.” In addition, one of the major English legal provisions, Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861, suggests that: “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, ... with intent, ... to do some ... grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude for life ....” (Sec 18. Offences Against the Person Act, 1861) and “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude ....” (Sec 20, Offences Against the Person Act, 1861) Both these sections clearly assert the fact that unless there is presence of intention in the actions of an individual he cannot be prosecuted under criminal law. However, children or adolescents, who have been prosecuted and taken into custody due to their actions, moistly belong to the age group of below 15 and on most of the occasions it has also been found that they never had adequate understanding of the fact even what guilty intention is. Even after commission of such acts they also repent and wish to ask for a chance to rectify such wrongs by being ‘good’ again. However, our system, administration, our beliefs and us, are the main factors that deny them from getting any other chance. We treat them in such a manner as if they are born with criminal intent and they must receive punishment for their actions; even those innocent souls are left helpless with hard core criminals, we are not moved by their plight. We still have not learnt to point fingers at us and because of such reason most of us remain ignorant about such grave problems and only a few proceed towards curing of such problem. Regrettably, their opinion is mostly refuted or they have not been provided with the right kind of opportunity to approach the legal authority to ask for a proper addressing of such issues. These facts are evident enough to expose the truth that the State is actually keen on suppressing the truth. It knows very well that no matter how hard they try but they are actually controlling the rate of youth crime only by superficial and momentary efforts and such initiatives actually do not solve the problem entirely. The system is also aware about the fact that the kind of harm it is causing against youth section of the society and desperate attempt to stop such failure from being exposed clearly show that it is a failure on their part to control youth crime. Condemning the youth through such method they are not only boosting future possibility of committing more crimes but at the same time they are also making the youths prone to different forms psychological disorder, which are actually weakening the nation. Response of the State and reaction of Common people: As the rate of crime in the United Kingdom has declined steadily since 1992, the State asserts that it is due to their policy of mass imprisonment that the situation has changed so dynamically. Actually the real situation is quite different. Since the 1990 onwards the scope of employment has increased in the United Kingdom and people have also become more sensitive towards the issue of increasing rate of criminal activities within the nation. These are actually most important reasons for falling of crime rate. General people’s reaction towards imprisonment policy of the government to control growing rate of crime in the society is not very positive. It is due to this reason organizations like RAP or Radical Alternatives to Prison are forming. Manifesto of the RAP clearly announces, “Some RAP members believe in the complete abolition of the use of imprisonment, others support a severe reduction in its use, all oppose the governments plan to lock up tens of thousands of additional women, children and men over the next 10 years. We are committed to campaigning together against Britain’s mass incarceration and developing radical alternatives to prison.” (Moore, July 2003) The manifesto also clearly declares that “The rapid rise in the number of our fellow citizens being imprisoned is the result of deliberate government policy. Since coming into power the current government has created over 300 new criminal offences.” (Moore, July 2003) Though these aspects have been mentioned in manifesto of a particular organization, but there is no denial of the fact that it is actually voice of the common people. In order to control criminal activities, mass imprisonment cannot be a proper solution but the UK government is sticking to such policy, despite being aware about the fact that to which extent it is plaguing the common people, more specifically the youth section of the society. “…government’s plans for mass imprisonment are immoral. The cost of building the tens of new prisons needed to house the tens of thousands increase in the prison population means new hospitals and schools will not be built....imprisonment is no cure for crime, that it may be their children who end up in abusive child or adult jails, or that schools and hospitals will not be built as the money is redirected to the out of control costs of mass imprisonment.”(Moore, July 2003) The common people are also becoming increasingly concerned about the fact that imprisonment of children and adolescents are actually contributing in no ways to bring a change in the crime scene of the nation. Such steps by the government are actually pushing them either to greater criminal involvements or they are losing their capacity to identify them as an integral part of the society. In the name of crime control the UK youths are actually been exploited in the hands of the State, this observation has widely been agreed by the common people. Consequently, along with the intellectuals the common people are also expressing their strong opinion regarding the fact that the government has actually failed to serve its purpose and the time has come that the government needs to take immediate action regarding change of plans or implementation of their existing policies. In this context Garland’s argument seems to be very relevant as he concentrated over nullity of the existing governmental policy, “[Previously] those involved in the business of [youth] crime control shared a common set of assumptions about the frameworks that shaped criminal justice and penal practice …. Today …. Policy development appears highly volatile, with an unprecedented amount of legislative activity, much dissension in the ranks of practitioner groups, and a good deal of conflict between experts and politicians ….” (Garland; Goldson, 2008, p. 259) Conclusion: Garland’s observation within its precise reflection has actually disclosed a vast area of reality. One of the main reasons that the government is reluctant to shift from its current standpoint of mass imprisonment is that it desperately refuses to accept the change that has occurred at the socio-political level. At the same time governmental reluctantcy is also responsible for such retaining of inhuman policy making. At the same time conflict between policy making experts and statesmen also becomes clear. Experts, on one hand, understand the kind of problems that youth section of the nation is suffering but their scope is limited because they will only make the policies and statesmen would determine if such policy can actually be implemented in the society or not. Cost of such conflict has actually been paid by the common people and youths of UK. No matter how much the State claims that the rate of youth crime is on decline and come up with statistical records to establish their point but the reality is youths of UK are at a high risk of being exploited in the hands of their own administration that is sworn to provide them with proper protection. Despite legal protection, as it has been enshrined by the constitution, it cannot be assured that youths will be protected from arbitrary actions of the State. May be youth crime has deceased but commission of crime to stop criminal activities in the policy of anarchism but not of democracy. References 1. Goldson, B., 2008, Dictionary of Youth Justice,Willan Publishing (Devon) 2. Muncie, J., Goldson, B, 2006, Youth, crime and justice: critical issues, SAGE (New Delhi) 3. “A better alternative reducing child imprisonment”, 2005, Narco (London), available at: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/resources/nacro-2005040500.pdf, accessed on: 15th Aug, 2009 4. “Youth Crime Factsheet”, July 2001, Narco (London), available at: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/resources/nacro-2004120243.pdf, accessed on: 15th Aug, 2009 5. Straus, M.A., Donnelly, D.A., 2001, Beating the devil out of them: corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children, Transaction Publishers (New Jersey) 6. Berman-Barrett, S.J., Berman, S.J., Bergman, P., 2008, Paul The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, Nolo (Berkeley) 7. Nottingham, H.F., Hale, M., Butler, C., Hargrave, F., Littleton, T., Coke, E., 1853, The first part of the Institutes of the laws of England: or, A commentary upon Littleton. Not the name of the author only, but of the law itself ..., R. H. Small, Original from: Harvard University 8. “Offences against the Person Act 1861,” 1861 (24 and 25 Vict. C. 100), available at: http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/oap1861/, accessed on: 15th Aug, 2008 9. Moore, J., July 2003, Radical Alternatives to Prison (RAP) Draft relaunch Manifesto, available at: http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:rDLIJJu78NwJ:www.alternatives2prison.ik.com/attachments/Radical%2520Alternatives%2520to%2520Prison%2520Draft%2520Manifesto.doc+child+imprisonment%2Byouth+crime+control&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in, accessed on: 15th Aug, 2008 Read More