Development of a Policy Regarding Anti-Social Behaviour - Essay Example

Development of a Policy Regarding Anti Social Behaviour Introduction: Anti social behaviour of the youth is destructive to society. When the youth did not follow the rules and regulations of the society, which results in peaceful social life, the social construction will be disturbed. UK government had developed a policy regarding anti social behaviour, which emphasises the effective use of law enforcement and criminal justice. In general the anti social behaviour does not depend only on poverty or youth. Even the educated and rich persons may be anti social in nature. The hawkers who damage the websites and computers by computer viruses can be a good example for the anti social elements in educated persons. The people who manufacture weapons for the mafia and the terrorists can also be considered as the anti social elements in the educated class. The anti social behaviour cannot be eradicated just with the law enforcement and criminal justice system. The reasons are that the causes for it are multifaceted and societal. Discussion: According to the report submitted by NYA to Home Affairs Committee anti social behaviour is destructing the lives of both urban and rural communities. The emphasis of National youth agency is that the anti social behaviour was being committed by the people of all ages and not only by the young people.1 The perception of anti social behaviour is different in different types of people according to their age and social standards. The rash driving of an elderly man can be anti social for the young people. The irritation caused to visually impaired person due to the irregular arrangement of the goods at the shop door and the movements of vehicles seems to be anti social. The topic that is to be contemplated is that most of the people consider the rude behaviour of the youth as anti social. The wider societal implications and anti social behaviour of all the citizens must be taken into consideration, in developing a policy regarding it. The policy must coordinate the law enforcement agencies and criminal justice system. Moreover the young people are the target of anti social behaviour in most of the cases. In most cases the youth aged between 16 to 24 years are at risk of facing the violent anti social behaviour. The emphasis on punishment and enforcement is not capable of giving good results. This was proved in the past. The administration, enforcement and judiciary must contemplate about addressing the cause of the anti social behaviour. The factors or the causes for the anti social behaviour can be as following: 1. Poor monitoring by the family, poverty, conflicts in the family 2. Low achievement in schools, lack of organisation in schools3 3. Bad neighbourhood, negligence by the community and neighbours, absence of social commitment 4. Peer pressure and lack of individuality that involves in problem behaviour. The framing of laws and their enforcement will show only minimum effect in controlling the anti social behaviour. Consider the drug trafficking. The details of laws enacted were available from 1940. 65 years of laws making and their enforcement, punishments did not completely eradicate the drug trafficking. The same is the thing with the other types of anti social behaviour also. The cause for the anti social behaviour will be different in different periods. In 60s the youth used to be drug addicts. Addicting to drugs used to be considered as anti social in those days. 1 Internationally many laws are framed and implemented on the name of UN conventions. Still the government did not completely eradicate the drug abuse. There are many patients in the country who are being treated for drug abuse. Let us consider the educational angle in drugs. The pharmaceutical drugs are being manufactured illegally in many countries globally and even in UK it goes unnoticed up to a little extent. This type of anti social behaviour cannot be controlled by mere law enforcement. At the same time one cannot ignore the role of law enforcement and criminal justice system. They play a major role in controlling anti social behaviour, but the fact is that the social and welfare points of view also must be taken to control the anti social behaviour in some sections of the society. What is needed other than enforcement of law: Government should emphasise on underlying causes to control Anti social behaviour other than law enforcement. According to survey conducted for Joseph Rowntree foundation tells that the majority of the people believe in prevention than the enforcement or punishment. Twenty percent of the people believed in tough action and 11 percent of the people believed in the combination o both prevention and enforcement. 2 The study was conducted at King’s college London. It reveals that the residents of the neighbourhoods experiencing anti social behaviour are offering different solutions to the problem. This is due to the fact that the difference in the people facing the anti social behaviour. The family which is a victim of anti social behaviour and have an anti social element in it will probably suggest a combination of prevention and enforcement. The families who are just victims of anti social behaviour may feel the tough enforcement and strong punishment may address the problem. The administration should take majority opinion and the fact that really addresses the problem into consideration. When development of a policy is concerned, the enforcement and punishment are a must and inseparable part of the solution. Even though we can observe that mere enforcement and punishment did not decrease the anti social behaviour in the country and all over the world. The necessity and the probability of committing the behaviour also will matter. The atmosphere should be in such a manner to prevent the anti social behaviour activities of any person. According to director of the institute for criminal policy research at King’s college and co author of the study point out that, the combined campaign of government against anti social behaviour had an appeal to law abiding majority. The study reveals a different picture. The results of the study are, the people want the government to be balanced with tough enforcement along with strong action to prevent problems regarding anti social behaviour. They are even going to the extent of offering the young people or the people who commit anti social behaviour, the constructive alternatives that prevent them from creating problems. The study, which was conducted by office for national statistics with in depth interviews found that, Anti social behaviour is an acute concern for a significant minority population. It did not or have less impact on the majority of the population. The people interviewed included representative from communities along with local anti social behaviour coordinators and housing officers. 20 percent of the respondents pointed that unruly teenagers are showing big bad effect on their lives. Though the anti social behaviour was observed in citizens of all ages the behaviour of the young people was most concerned and visible. The misbehaviour of children and young people regarding the drug and alcohol abuse creates disputes in families and make them problematic to the neighbourhood. The solutions suggested did not coincide with each other. The residents who feel that the Anti social behaviour is due to the declining moral values preferred the strong enforcement and punishment. The people who felt that the deprivation is a cause for the anti social behaviour felt that the preventive measures should be taken by constructive activities that show reasonable employment. The balanced was sought at the places where the draconian responses of the administration failed. As this is a time tested and practical solution regarding the control of the anti social behaviour, the development of policy to control anti social behaviour must be a mix of preventive measures and strict enforcement. The study revealed that the enforcement and punishment provided short tem answer to anti social behaviour. As the root causes for the occurrence of the behaviour was not addressed, they may happen again, forcing the administration and agencies to take action repeatedly. The study suggests that, the administration must counter the sense of powerlessness and pessimism in the downtrodden. Visible enforcement must be replaced by the efforts of the community to build its own capacity. Critical awareness of contemporary issues in criminal justice: In his book victims of crime and criminal justice Brian Williams provided a summary of the happenings in the field of criminal justice in United Kingdom. He criticised the methods of over compensation and focussed on the improved security for the witnesses. Here the preventive does not matter. The execution of law and justice delivery can be discussed. The need of fairness and accountability of community justice can be emphasises and the point that it should not be dominated by interest groups must be stressed. The programmes which have little direct involvement of the victims can be considered critically. The over emphasis on the compensative measures must be lessened. The emphasis on compensative measures will help more the perpetrators than the victims. The constructive attitude of helping the society to prevent the anti social behaviour must not interfere in the law enforcement. The constructive attitudes of the government or administration must be implemented. Along with that, the perpetrators should not be spared on the name of the prevention or constructive programmes. The preventive and enforcement methods should be in such a manner that they must develop constructive programmes that prevent anti social behaviour. When the anti social behaviour occurs repeatedly, the criminal justice system should deliver justice to the victims. The victims should not be sidelined like in the reparative boards in Vermont, USA. In those reparative boards the ex sexual offenders were supported instead of being shunned. Even in UK some recent activities like community safety partnerships and febrile rolled out before the results were observed. This cannot be termed as fair as it does not show the accountability of the officials in delivering justice to the victims. The difference between the communitarian and restorative society must be emphasised and the importance of legitimising the criminal justice must be minimised. The development of the society must be based on trust, respect, participation, responsibility and solidarity. This increases mutual support and is capable of decreasing the coercion and fear, which are responsible for anti social behaviour in the society. The restorative justice cannot be supported as it is paternalistic and not voluntary.1 The emphasis can be more on family group conferences and peace committees within the community. In this context the achievements of Denmark and Austria can be taken into consideration. In Denmark the community involvement was minimised. The question of improvising the position of the victims will arise in the next context. They should not be used by the political leadership as ‘in the service of severity’. When courts fail to give compensatory orders in time the victim is victimised again. In this regard the UK criminal justice system has no system of re socialisation of funds like in Germany. The extra resources for the service of the victims were being diverted. This seriously affects the delivery of justice by criminal justice system. The victims of the crimes should not be ignored in the judicial or police inquiry. In this context if the regulations are ignored, they show a fatal effect on the victims. All the policies developed regarding the control of anti social behaviour emphasised on prevention, enforcement and punishment. There is no much emphasis on victim uplift and reconciliation for them. Helping and making the victims to nullify or minimise the damage done must be a part of the criminal justice system. The experimental designs regarding the development of criminal justice system provide a relationship between interventions and outcomes. This is not actually reflects in practice. This is due to the fact that the randomised experiments have remained as a less common choice for criminal justice evaluators. They rely more on non experimental methods.2 The focus should be on the factors that are inhibited traditionally like the use of randomised experiments as a tool for developing policy regarding the implementation of criminal justice. The ethical, political and practical barriers that are faced by the experiments must be studied. This makes the evaluators to know about the circumstances and the environment that is needed for using the randomised experiments as a tool for criminal justice policy framing. References: 1. author not mentioned, 2006, NYA Response to Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into Anti-Social Behaviour, The National Youth Agency, ,electronic, 8-12-06, http://www.nya.org.uk/Templates/internal.asp?NodeID=90783 2. legal advice, 2006, UK drugs and drug laws, Information advocacy, ,electronic, 8-12-06, http://www.release.org.uk/html/~The_Law/~Legal_History/1940_to_2005.php 3. Mike Hough, 2005, Campaign against anti-social behaviour 'needs prevention as well as enforcement, Joseph rown tree foundation, ,electronic, 8-12-06, http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/070605.asp 4. Martin Right, 2006, Book Review: Victims of crime and community justice, Restorative justice online, ,electronic, 8-12-06, http://restorativejustice.org/editions/2006/november2006/brwilliams 5. David Weisburd, 2000, Randomized Experiments in Criminal Justice Policy: Prospects and Problems, Sage journals online, ,electronic, 8-12-06, http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/2/181 Read More