Youth Incarceration in UK - Essay Example

An Evaluation of Youth Incarceration in UK Introduction. In the last two decades or so, precisely from 1997/8 until the present, the youth justice system in the UK has witnessed complete and energetic overhauling essentially directed towards tougher stance on youth crime, resulting a ceiling high youth and children incarceration rate (Hough and Julian, 2004; Goldson, 2004: 69; Goldson, 2005:77). It is argued that the pace of these changes is unprecedented in British history (Goldson, 2004). The enactment, in 1998 of the Crime and Disorder Act, marked a paradigm shift youth justice policy from both the welfare oriented innovations of the 1960s and 1970s, and the diversionary measures of the 1980s (Pitts and Kuula, 2005: 147). Current statistics of juvenile incarceration shows that England and Wales have the highest imprisonment rates for children and young people in Western Europe, surpassed by Turkey and Ukraine only (Youth Justice Board, 2006; Goldson, 2004; Goldson, 2005). The indignation for this rising incarceration for young offenders is succinctly expressed the Prison Reform Trust's assertion that the present statistics of the country's children in incarceration, might 'shame' the country into 'reducing prison numbers and finding more effective solutions to juvenile crime' (Prison Reform Trust, 2006). As a result of this sharp increase in the number of youths and young persons in custody, as a fall out of the UK's 'newfound tough stance' on youth crime, the efficiency of incarcerating youths and children has been severally debated in academic, policy and practice settings, both on national and international scenes. An indication of lack of trust in the incarceration of young offenders as a means of reducing juvenile crime is apparent from the statement of Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, '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 non-custodial alternatives' (quoted in Nacro, 2005). In the light of the search for alternatives to juvenile incarceration, several researchers and policy makers have made strong and persuasive arguments for the reduction, or sometimes, a complete abolition of incarceration for young offenders. It is in this regard that this paper attempt to address the issue of juvenile incarceration; its appropriateness or, as a tool for containing young offenders and an analysis of alternative measures employed in other territories. The essay shall begin with an overview of British history of youth incarceration, taking a look at the policy changes over the years, and perhaps, how it has affected the rate of young offenders. This will be followed by a look at the statistics of juvenile imprisonment over the last two decades, in comparison with the rate of re-offenders as a measure of the efficiency of incarceration in curbing young offenders. This part of the essay will end with a look at the several 'new' alternatives to incarceration been proposed or employed within the UK. The second part of the essay shall extensively review the methods and approaches to juvenile justice employed by some countries that have few of their young population in custody and yet a lower juvenile crime rate, with a view to finding viable alternatives to youth incarceration that can be imported into the UK juvenile justice system. English history is replete with documentation of incarcerating children in specialist institutions of whatever sorts, under several guises and nomenclature. The Vagrancy Act of 1824 was considered as the first piece of formal legislation directed at criminalising criminals and non-criminals alike (Bell and Jones, 2002:25; Goldson 2004:72); still in force today, the legislation was the first to introduce the concept of 'anti-social' behaviour obscuring such core questions of justice, as put by Goldson, "the justification (or not) of formal intervention, and the legitimacy (or otherwise) of the state's power to punish" (Goldson 2004:72). However, following the establishment of the first penal institution, exclusively for children at Parkhurst Prison for Boys in 1838, the best part of the last two centuries has witnessed the rising and falling levels child incarceration, legal and policy developments and carceral experiments, mostly depending on the juvenile justice policy of the government in the helms of affairs. This period has also witnessed an evolution of the nomenclature for penal institutions exclusively meant for children, the list is endless; 'Industrial Schools; Reformatories; Borstals; Approved Schools; Remand Centres; Detention Centres; Community Homes with Education; Youth Custody Centres; Secure Units; Secure Treatment Centres; Young Offender Institutions and Secure Training Centres'. However, one common fact that cuts across these numerous and confused descriptors is that the practice of child incarceration has been maintained, albeit to varying degrees, throughout the English history (Goldson 2005; Goldson 2004). The apparent duplicity, or better still, confusion that has hallmarked youth justice policies over this last two hundred years, not only in the UK but globally, was aptly conceived by Muncie and Hughes thus ". . . youth justice is a history of conflict, contradictions, ambiguity and compromise . . . [it] tends to act on an amalgam of rationales, oscillating around and beyond the caring ethos of social services and the neo-liberal legalistic ethos of responsibility and punishment". (Muncie and Hughes, 2002: 1). Early on in the twentieth century, precisely in 1933, the enactment of the Children and Young Persons Act, established separate legal procedure for the young population and fixed the age of criminal responsibility at 8; apparently, the lowest in most part of Europe, then. The Criminal Justice Act of 1948 ushered in detention centres for children in 1952 and a result of criticism, the Children and Young Persons Act of 1963 raise the age of criminal responsibility for children to 10years (Bell and Jones, 2002:29). However, late in the 1960s and through the 1970s, the English youth justice system took a welfarist approach to managing youth crime. During this period, the core factors behind youth crime were accorded more priority than the offence committed. Child criminality was considered a symptom of a deeper disorder including addiction, depression, family violence and learning difficulties. Thus, the young offender was viewed as person in need of urgent help, consequentially, the treatment of these symptomatic disorders appears to be afforded a far higher priority than programmes that address 'offending behaviour' or reparation, which is by far the dominant function of the present youth justice system (Goldson 2004; Pitts and Kuula 2005). Moreover, the welfarist approach to child criminality is further substantiated by Gordon's argument that the bulk of children found custody represent "children for whom, the fabric of life invariably stretches across poverty; family discord; public care; drug and alcohol misuse; mental distress; ill-health; emotional, physical and sexual abuse; self-harm; homelessness; isolation; loneliness; circumscribed educational and employment opportunities; and the most pressing sense of distress and alienation," (2005: 80), these children needs a variety of welfare services, and not incarceration. The efficiency of the welfarist approach to managing and reducing youth crime can be found in countries and states where this approach has been enshrined in the juvenile justice system. A typical example is the case of Finland with the least number of children in custody and yet the lowest rate of young offenders in Europe (Pitts and Kuula 2005). While the 1980s saw a paradigm shift from the welfarist approach to youth crime, it was still a far cry to the punitive stance of the present. The 1980s was an era of 'classical justice' to use the words of Goldson (2004: 70); and a substantial fall in the child incarceration. During this period, though there was a shift from the consideration of child criminal behaviour as a symptom of a deeper problem that required help, incarceration was not considered as the best tool for managing young offenders. Thus, this period experienced a rise in pre-court diversions with the development of a broader range of non-custodial sentences for young offenders. There was a rise in the number of young offences given police caution, and several other 'lower order' penalties such as fines, probations, discharges etc. (Nacro, 2005; Goldson, 2004). It would be in line with the purpose of this paper to state here that, during the periods of increased reliance on non-custodial alternatives to managing youth offenders, the population of young offenders was apparently lower compared to the present rate of young offenders. The periods from early 1990s to the present has witnessed the most ambitious policy formulations in the area of youth justice. In sharp contrast to the 1980s, the 1900s saw a dramatic fall in the use and rate of pre-court diversion from about 70 percent of cases to just about 50 percent and a consequent increase in the number of children prosecuted for trivial offences. Unlike the welfarist approach of the 1970s or the 'classical justice' of the 1980s, the 1990s became a period of increasing 'interventionist' and then 'punitive' approach to juvenile justice with a rapid fall in the use of lower tariff disposals and a reduction in the range of community programmes available to the court (Nacro, 2005). According to Goldson, the zealous interventionist juvenile justice policies heralded the election of the New Labour government, for the first time early in the 1990s. He argued that "as early as 1993, when the New Labour motif of 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' was first formulated, youth justice policy formation has been overtly politicized" (2005:78). The policy developments, with regards to children, young people and crime, from this period to the present, have been both unprecedented and relentless. "Three successive New Labour governments have applied a 'blizzard of initiatives, crackdowns and targets'; a 'toughening up [of] every aspect of the criminal justice system' introduced via innumerable policy statements and ultimately implemented through statute" (Goldson, 2005:78). Numerous far reaching and deep cutting policy reforms in juvenile justice system have been achieved within the last 12-13years with an array of new legislation including: the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999; the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000; the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000; the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; the Police Reform Act 2002; the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003; the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Goldson, 2004; Goldson, 2005). It is argued that beyond the apparent political obsession with being 'tough on crime' and the 'no more excuse' stance, there does not appear to be a sound rationale behind the barrage of new legislation with respect to youth offence, considering the fact that youth offence have fairly stabilized over the same period. The newfound obsession with incarceration as the major method of 'managing' or better still, 'reforming' young offenders has resulted in the rates of imprisonment in the UK escalating significantly over this past decade, topping the records of almost every other European country. Goldson reports that the "total number of custodial sentences imposed upon children rose from approximately 4,000 per annum in 1992 to 7,600 in 2001, a 90 per cent increase (Nacro, 2003 and 2005). During the same period, the child remand population grew by 142 per cent. In March 2004, there were 3,251 children (10-17 years) in penal custody in England and Wales: 2,772 in Prison Service Young Offender Institutions; 290 in Local Authority Secure Children's Homes and 189 in privately managed Secure Training Centres" (2005:80) Amazingly, the failure of incarceration in managing youth offences is virtually impossible to ignore. As reported in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, the overall re-offending rate for young offenders is almost 50 percent. This means that almost half of the young people sentenced to custody for an offence commit the same or worse offences within 12months after being released from custody. Breaking down the re-offenders' statistics, the report mentioned above stated that the re-offending rate in 2004 for offenders aged 12 was 34.5 percent, while for offenders aged 17 it was 44 percent, and interestingly, an increase in the re-offending rate of the young offenders aged 10 (Whiting and Cuppleditch 2006:4-5) Furthermore, the report stated that for the 4year period between 2000 and 2004, the actual re-offending rate for young offenders aged 10, 12, 13 and 15 were considerably higher than the predicted rates. Also, in most cases, re-offending occurs early on within the one year period, with approximately 75 percent of re-offending taking place within the first six months after release from custody (Whiting and Cuppleditch 2006:4-5). From wherever perspectives these facts are considered, one point that stands out is that incarceration is not an effective tool in managing young offenders. This fact adds steam to the argument that children who are incarcerated are, in most cases, 'invariably drawn from the most damaged, distressed, neglected - and correlatively sometimes neglectful - families, neighbourhoods and communities' (Goldson, 2004). The consequences of placing such 'damaged children in a damaging environment' is very much predictable - family relations invariably become more strained; negative behavioural traits are normally reinforced; experience of bullying, intimidation and violence in myriad forms is widespread; alienation becomes compounded; institutionalisation a risk and stigmatisation a certainty' (Goldson, 2005). In essence, incarceration achieves no more than creating a worst, damaged criminal. Therefore, child incarceration, especially on a large scale, like is obtainable in the UK at present, systematically damages children, fails to prevent and/or reduce youth crime and it imposes an extraordinary financial burden on the public purse (Goldson, 2004: 71). Thus, as observed by Foucault (1991: 232), prison (in all of its various forms) is 'dangerous when it is not useless' (quoted in Goldson, 2005). However, in the gloom of the present situation, several government ministers and major state agencies are already appreciating the ineffectiveness of child incarceration; for instance, Paul Goggins, in answer to a parliamentary question, allegedly confirmed that the 'numbers of 'vulnerable' children placed in Young Offender Institutions have followed upward trajectories each year since 2000,' also, Goldson (2005), reports that the most senior personnel from eight major statutory inspectorates agreed that 'young people in YOIs still face the gravest risks to their welfare' (quoting Social Services Inspectorate et al. 2002: 72. Even Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (2005: 57) conceded that most children are not safe in prison. Perhaps, this appreciation of the damaging effects and inefficiency of child incarceration in managing child criminality has led to the development and deployment of several alternatives to custody. These alternatives include tagging, curfew orders and community service, under the Intensive Supervision and Support Programme of the Youth Justice Board. From inception in 2001, these alternatives have received popular support from the youth justice system, especially the courts, with up to 1,300 young people under different forms of supervision and/or support (Nacro, 2003). However, and rather unfortunately, these alternatives to custody have not achieved the desired reduction in the number of children sent to prison. Although, there is nothing wrong with these programmes, as they have been effectively put in use in other countries; however, in the increasingly interventionist English youth justice system, these programmes have to some extent appear to be net-widening, replacing other, less intensive, community options instead of incarceration. Nacro (2003) argues that in a "punitive climate, intensive programmes can reinforce the prevailing trend to deal with the same offences more harshly" (Nacro, 2003: 5). Secondly, for any alternative programme to incarceration to effectively achieve the desired goal, there must be an increase in pre-court diversion, as was the case in the 1980s. There should be greater reliance on lower order penalties like discharges, fines and reparation orders, probation and an expanded range of community interventions. Also, social workers and other specialist practitioners should be convinced and be able to convince the court system that young people whose offence might be serious or persistent can be effectively managed in the community. To better understand what works, when it comes to managing juvenile delinquency, it is useful to compare and analyse the juvenile justice systems of countries that have achieved reduction and/or abolition of custody as a response to young offences. Following this line of thought, Goldson and Muncie (2006: 93) highlighted two different approaches to juvenile delinquency on the international scene; the first approach is intrinsically pessimistic, and according to the authors, "It conceives a hegemonic 'culture of control', within which the 'special status' of 'childhood' is diminishing; welfare protectionism is retreating; children are increasingly 'responsibilised' through processes of 'adulteration' and the penal population of young people continues to expand worldwide" (2006: 93). This school of thought includes the UK following the step of the USA. The second approach, which is more popular and international, refers to "a sense of continual movement towards penal tolerance, child centeredness and progressive human rights compliance." Within this group of nations, the UK is conspicuously missing. On a general sense, the most progressive and constructive youth justice systems appear to be found in territories and jurisdictions where there is the political strength and wish to encourage welfare protectionism of the young population, where the 'child' status of the young offender comes before the offence committed and such communities have obviously been rewarded with minimal juvenile criminality. The first distinguishing factor between the punitive oriented system and a welfare oriented is the age of criminal responsibility. The UK has one of the lowest ages for criminal responsibility; whereas the UK holds children to be criminally responsible at the early age of 10 (8 in Scotland), other welfare oriented countries delay the formal age of 'responsibility for their young population. In Canada, the Netherlands and Turkey, age of criminal responsibility is 12, 13 in France, 14 in Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand and Spain, 15 in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden and, 18 in Belgium and Luxembourg ( Goldson 2004; Goldson and Muncie; Pitts and Kuula, 2005). Despite the higher age of criminal responsibility in these countries, the rate of child incarceration and the population of young offenders are still lower compared to the UK, except in some cases like Turkey. Perhaps, the first point for consideration in the UK juvenile justice system is a review of the age of criminalisation. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2002) had earlier complained that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is virtually the lowest in Europe and recommended that it is considerably increased (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2002). The UK might be heading for reduction in custody if this advice is heeded. An in-depth analysis of the various methods and policies in countries that have effectively managed their young offenders brings to the fore two different approaches to child criminality that could be very useful in revitalising the incarceration inclined juvenile justice system in the UK if imported. These approaches are welfarist, as is obtainable in Finland - the country with the lowest child population in custody in Europe, and some other Nordic countries like Sweden, Norway etc; and the diversionary or to use the term of Goldson 'classical justice' which is found in countries like Italy, Scotland, New Zealand etc. Fortunately, or unfortunately, in the history of youth justice systems in the UK these are all policies that have, at one time or the other, effectively put into use. Obviously, the country will find better alternatives to child incarceration, if it would just look back in history. Finland is a typical example of a country with welfarist youth justice system. As reviewed by Pitts and Kuula (2005), the Finnish youth justice system accords juvenile offence low priority, it is believed that child criminality is symptom of a deeper disorder, such as addiction, poverty, family violence and/or learning disabilities. The young offender is perceived as in need of help rather than incarceration. Consequentially, the treatment of these underlying disorders are regarded as more important than programmes that address the offending behaviour or reparation, which is the dominant mode of thinking in a punitive society like the UK (Pitts and Kuula, 2005: 158). This approach is better buttressed by the variety of welfare and psychiatric/psychological facilities and structures that pervade the youth justice system of the country, ranging from reformatories, shelters for battered family members, hospitals, special psychiatric units, youth clinics for drug detoxification through children's homes, independent supported living to Private care. Obviously, as mentioned earlier, this welfare approach to juvenile delinquency is similar to what obtains in the UK during the 1970s when young offenders where consigned to 'Community Homes with Education' (CHEs) on the basis of the Children and Young Person's Act of 1969. The diversionary and tolerant approach to juvenile justice is typified by Italy and some other countries like the New Zealand, Belgium, and The Netherlands etc. While this system does not consign every young offender to one welfare one or another psychiatric unit, it does not however, incarcerates its offending young population so willingly as observed in the English system. These countries have developed a high sense of tolerance for their offending population and in the effort to manage the child criminality without resorting to incarceration have developed several lower order penalties that effectively curb the excesses of the offending young population. As typified by the Italian youth justice system, this approach to youth criminality delve deep into the rationale behind the offence and with this understanding decide the appropriate sanction for the offending youth. As reported by Scalia (2005), the Italian system, for example, avoids incarceration of its young population with the use of three different diversionary tools. Cases of juvenile offence resolved without resorting to incarceration through the mechanisms of 'irrilevanza del fatto' (insufficient seriousness to warrant conviction); 'perdono giudiziale' (judicial pardon); or 'messa alla prova' (probation). "These three judicial decisions can be said to have the cumulative effect of making crime 'disappear'; that is they interact to avoid conviction and, taken together, they comprise a judicial climate based on a refusal to simply administer punishment" (Scalia, 2005: 35), but instead to correct. For example, a child that is reported for stealing could be granted 'irrilevanza del fatto', if after investigation, the child is discovered to live in poverty. The Italian penal law provides that a judge can decide to give a 'perdono giudiziale' (judicial pardon) to a young offender, as long as it can be inferred that the defendant will refrain from further delinquencies. Under this provision, a judge is allowed to decide on the severity of a crime, after considering the nature of the offence, the personality of the offender and the circumstances of the young offender, and the personal and social context. Although, a sentence of judicial pardon remains in the youth's criminal record until the age of 21, it is still a major means of diverting children and young people from the penal system. Under this juvenile justice system, most often, the last resort is probation (A Messa alla prova). Probation involves a "suspension of the trial, together with the drawing up of a programme of community intervention that the defendant must follow in order for the crime to go unrecorded" (Scalia, 2005: 40). This system provides judges the more alternatives and better instruments to instigate diversion from the penal system. Together with the other two provisions discussed above, the Italian system of diversionary strategies, increased tolerance has significantly reduced the number of young people incarcerated, and there is no evidence, whatsoever, to show that the rate of juvenile criminality has improved as a result of this system of tolerance. Again, looking back, this is similar to what obtains in the English system in the 1980s when police caution, and several other 'lower order' penalties such as fines, probations, discharges where employed to manage juvenile delinquency. Conclusion In the last twelve years, the English youth justice system has experienced a barrage of policy reforms that are directed towards a 'zero tolerance' and a more punitive system, leading to an all time high population of children in prison. A critical look at the system shows that incarceration as a tool for managing juvenile delinquency is counterproductive, as evident from the statistics of re-offenders within a one year period, and the damaging effect of incarceration on the proper mental, physical and emotional development of the child. Furthermore, reviewing the history of the English youth justice system, on the one hand, and what obtains in countries with low child incarceration, on the other, shows that there are several effective alternatives to child incarceration and by looking around, or looking back at its history, UK will find better and more effective tools and policies for managing juvenile delinquency, if it is sincere in her quest for a better, crime free, and safer community. References Bell, Robert and Gill Jones (2002), Youth Policies in the UK: A Chronological Map (2nd ed), London. Challen, Mark and Thea Walton (2005). Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons: Juveniles in Custody. A unique insight into the perceptions of young people held in Prison Service custody in England and Wales, London. Criminalisation and Resistance', in Goldson, Barry and John Muncie (2006), Rethinking Youth Justice: Comparative Analysis, International Human Rights and Research Evidence, Youth Justice, Vol 6 No. 2 pp. 91-106 Goldson B. (2005). Child Imprisonment: A Case for Abolition, Youth Justice, VOL. 5 No 2, pp.77-90. Goldson, Barry (2004), Tough on Children ... Tough on Justice, Youth, Crime and Justice, Sage. Goldson, Barry and John Muncie (2006), Rethinking Youth Justice: Comparative Analysis, International Human Rights and Research Evidence, Youth Justice, Vol 6 No. 2 pp. 91-106 Hough, Mike and Julian V. Roberts (2003), Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales, Institute of Criminal Policy Research, London. Muncie, J. and Hughes, G. (2002) 'Modes of Youth Governance: Political Rationalities, Nacro (2003), A failure of justice: reducing child imprisonment. London, Nacro. Nacro (2005), A Better Alternative: Reducing Child Imprisonment, London, Nacro. Pitts, John and Tarja Kuula (2005), Incarcerating Young People: An Anglo-Finnish Comparison, Youth Justice Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 147-164. Prison Reform Trust (2006), Prison figures shaming, Last Updated 18 Jan 2006, accessed 7th August 2006 Rethinking Crime & Punishment: The Report (2004), Esme Fairbairn Foundation, Beacon Press, London. Scalia, Vincenzo (2005), A Lesson in Tolerance Juvenile Justice in Italy, Youth Justice Vol. 5 No.1, pp.33-43. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2002) Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,Geneva, United Nations. White, Randy (2005), Interaction with Nature during the Middle Years: It's Importance in Children's Development & Nature's Future, Accessed 8th August 2006, Available at Whiting, Elizabeth and Lucy Cuppleditch (2006), Re-offending of juveniles: Results from the 2004 Cohort, Reconviction Analysis Team, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, London Youth Justice Board (2006), Prison Should be a Last Resort. Last updated 18 Jan 2006, accessed 7th August 2006 Read More