Problems of Children and Young in Britain - Essay Example

Running Head: Britain in 1980s-1990s Britain in 1980s-1990s [Institute’s Britain in 1980s-1990s Psychiatrics believe that childhood is the most imbalanced part of a human’s life, a period when he is growing mentally and physically, and this each stage is associated with cognitive changes, which would influence the rest of his life. The sort of behavior that this young youth shows is a marker of his future life, “the primitive actions, giving way to sophisticated ideas” (Haydon & Scraton, pg. 416, 2000). These children are “vulnerable beings” whose actions can be polished through parent, teacher, who in their hands hold the future of a rational human (Haydon & Scraton, pg. 416, 2000). There are many laws, which persist to protect the interests of the young adults and to establish their footing in society as individuals. However, their age is a fundamental restriction in complete participation in the society, which commemorates activities such as alcohol, cigarettes, lotteries, sexual activities, and driving. It also defines the age at which these children could be held responsible for criminal offences they might have committed; but greatest concern of sociologists is as to what are the offences and age that mark the line between these youth`s being condemned by the law. Conversely, the Howard Law confirms, “no civilized society regards children as accountable for their actions to the same extent as the adults” (Haydon & Scraton, pg. 416, 2000). The criminal age set for children in England in 1998, is 10; much less as compared to that in other European states; while between the age of ten and fourteen, he could be pleased for criminal responsibility, if it could be proven that the child knew what he did was wrong. Critics believe that at this small age, a child does not have ability to comprehend the gravity of his (criminal) actions, nor understand complexity of the investigation and follow, which would proceed with it. The young society of England was labeled under the ‘crisis of childhood’ after the famous murder of a 2-year old James Bulgar in 1993 by two eleven-year old boys, who were proven guilty under the same laws as that applied to an adult. The case taken by the media and politicians’ exploitation proved that the two boys were ‘folk devils’ or ‘freaks of nature,’ changing sense of childhood being full of innocence and vulnerability to criminality and loss of natural behavior. What was more horrific was trials aftermath of the adult creation of a child’s innocent and negligent behavior. It followed up a phenomenon, “moral panic,” a substance that is born when certain acts are given proper definitions and labels, which then taken a proper route of being a threat to social and moral behavior of the society. Thus, the case of murder created a sense of fear, anxiety, and hostility in the society, while on institutional side, stronger and more fierce laws built against the offences committed by these new socially harmful young adults. The adults build up a society where children were the culprits, who did not attend school, were always concerned with mischief, appreciated adult content, and were nothing but savages, stereotyping it as a civilization of young devils. An ordinary British street now represented homeless children, drug abusers, little criminals, schools changed to gang locations, etc. A single incident of murder was able to divide the entire British society into two distinct parts; a post 1980’s period where children were regarded as innocents and families were the strongholds of the entire society, and the other half that followed this period was a society invaded by young brutal aliens, breaking the entire societal structure. With the increase in number of the lawless youth, in 1995, UN presented a report on the Rights of Child. The committee showed that lack of work by the government support to better manage younger part of their society, which did not work in better interests of the children; it also wrote against imprisonment cells and laws made by the government to punish offences of the youth (Haydon & Scraton, pg. 427, 2000). Following this objection, the government erected Child Safety and the Crime and Disorder Act in 1998, which catered to the nonsocial behavior overwhelming the country. Under the new order, a child committed for an offense, was to confront questions, investigations, and brought to trial in the court of justice. Laws defined by the order had separate rules for children under the age of ten, so that they get well training to stay away from criminal activities, these rules included curfews and supervision of the child at all times. It also established parenting rules, by which the parents were to meet with a counselor in case of their inability to handle the child and make him respect on their own. The idea of a child being ‘doli incapax’ a Latin word that had been previously used to define a child as being incapable of committing a crime, was quietly removed and replaced by laws which murdered the very concept of childhood. The young murders in the Bulgar case were sentenced lifetime imprisonment, but the number of years defined to their imprisonment was to be decided according to their actions and deeds performed during their lives in the jail, if they had turned out to be less dangerous to the society. David Cameroon of the Conservative Party then took a step forward in perceiving the case and told the government that the murder represented more than just an offense by two young boys, but displayed recession of the society, which by now was nothing but a shattered community. He believed that the case did not mean there was a lack of barbaric rules to stop such offences, but it meant that the society itself had become hollow from the inside, and needed to strengthen to avoid such incidences to get even worse (Stratton, 2010). Conversely, white paper published in 1980, in the section allocated for young offenders suggested the erection of tougher detention centers for criminals between the ages of 14 to 21; which was described as “the most disturbing aspects of the statistics for offending” (Rutherford, pg 16-19, 2002). What came with this report were extreme consequences for young offenders, but the Criminal Justice Act of 1982 abolished imprisonment of children below the age of 21, and replaced them with Youth Custody centers, where they were to be retained for only 4 to 6 months (Rutherford, pg 16-19, 2002). However, the result of it was unexpected as there was a rapid increase in the juvenile crime rate in the mid 1980s until the end of the decade, with the crime rate increasing at a rate of more than 50% in 1986. The rate of the children convicted of crime and warned increased by 98.8% among children and 57.4% in juveniles, in this 9-year period, (from 1986 to 1984). This increase in the crime rate was the associated with the rising poverty rate with the recession in economy being at its worse, and to the disruption of the society and breakdown of the family system, which forced children into crime. Other than the social exclusion, the trend is also associated with increase in the number of drug addicts in this period that might have influenced these young minds. To counter this rapid increase in violence, the government reverted in developing strong sentencing punishment for juveniles going against the law, thus, the Criminal Justice Act of 1991 significantly made the community believe that they would confront punishment for all wrong deeds. It defined a child to be a person below the age of 14 and in case of guilty; he would be detained in the Young Offender Institution, for ages between 15 and 20; thus, the law continued to work with both welfare and punishment together. This overall increase in the government action to control situation in 1995 took the crime rate back to its original level as it was in 1987. Furthermore, in the year 1998, the doli capax confronted removal completely and government arranged that young offender according to the gravity of his crime was to contribute to community welfare and his parents should receive proper guidance to make them learn parenting skills. The future of any society in the world holds upon a strong, responsible, and educated youth; which lies in their better schooling, training, and matching with jobs. However, the extent to which these young adults could better even find an employment opportunity today is becoming a high concern affecting the societal structure. In 1983, after the war the youth unemployment rate had risen to about 26%, while the number of entrepreneur firms entering the market declined from 240,000 in 1964 to 63,700 in 1986 (Dolton, pg 1261, 1993). Many parents in the 80’s and 90’s lost their jobs, which left them unemployed for long periods, which had devastating consequences for them and their families to follow. The neglect of the Tories government did not only make the adult population of that time suffer, but the children who are the adult generation of today, suffer through their mistakes. The statistics indicate that the law and order worsened from 14.4% in the period of 1983-1992, to about 23.7% in 1992-2001 (Goldson, pp. 20-25, 1997). The conditions of the youth in that period were insecure, poor, unemployed, endangered, drugged, and intoxicated (Taylor, p. 65, 1999). The British government, aware of its history in the crisis situation in 1997 launched an effective program such as the Youth Crime Action Plan, which handles youth criminal cases, and guides them to avoid reoffending in their lives; whereas, a Justice Board was created in 1998 ensuring that children rights along with their better training were also respected. The programs agenda remains to educate the offensive youth bring them to the right path and to provide them with efficient skills so that they could make better use of themselves as individuals, giving them a hope which would prevent crime (HM Government, 2010). Lastly, the population on the whole no matter accepts the worsening of the children attitude, but they also believe that for a smarter and more responsible generation of the future these young offenders need to be taught today. Thus with the right form of leadership, correct and certified guidance programs, and more of studies into the actual root cause of the juvenile crime is the best measure to stop the crime for happening from the very start (Allen, pp. 3-12, 2002). References Allen, Rob. (2002). “There must be Some Way of Dealing with Kids’: Young Offenders, Public Attitudes, and Policy Change.” Youth Justice. Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 3-12. Dolton, J, P. (1993). “The Economics of Youth Training in Britain.” The Economic Journal. Volume 102, Issue 420, pp. 1261. Goldson, B. (1997). Children in Trouble. UCL Press. Haydon, D., Scraton, P. (2000). “Condemn a Little More, Understand a Little Less: The Political Context and Rights Implications of the Domestic and European Rulings in the Venables-Thompson Case.” Journal of Law and Society. Volume 27, Issue 3, pp. 416-448. HM Government. (2010). Youth Crime Action Plan Year One. Retrieved on March 14, 2010 from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/youth-crime-action-plan/one-year-on2835.pdf?view=Binary Pfeiffer, C. (1998). “Juvenile Crime and Violence in Europe.” Crime and Justice. Volume 23, pp. 255-328. Rutherford, A. (2002). Growing out of Crime. Waterside Press. Stratton, A. (2010). “Edlington case is symptom of broken society.” The Guardian. Retrieved on March 14, 2010 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/22/david-cameron-edlington-broken-society Taylor, I. (1999). Crime in Context. Westview Press. Read More