The Needs of Young People - Assignment Example

The Needs of Young People Introduction In order to determine whether the needs of young offenders and the risks they pose are the same it is necessary to firstly examine the legal framework of the youth justice system. This will involve an examination of specific legislation in relation to youth justice as well as a study of the 1989 Children Act and the subsequent amendments included within the Children Act 2004. Having examined the legislation this paper will then go on to explore the risks posed by young offenders as well as the needs of those offenders so as to draw a conclusion as to whether there is any correlation between the two. Legal framework for the youth justice system in England and Wales According to Arthur (2005) the courts have held the parents of offending youths responsible on some level since the 19th century. Prior to 1990 such parental responsibility was only generally found in financial terms with the parents being forced to pay compensation for the harm caused by their children1. The same financial responsibility has been retained since the reforms in the criminal justice system2 but the government has added extra burdens on the parents in non-financial terms. Gelsthorpe (1999) highlights the proposed changes that the Government were planning on implementing in 1991 such that the parents of offending children could be charged with failing ‘to prevent their children from committing offences’. These plans failed to come to fruition but the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 s58 did give the courts the power to issue a bind-over to the parents of offending youths. Parents were entitled to refuse to accept the bind-over but could then be faced with a fine of £1000. Prior to the 1991 Act the non-financial responsibility of parents was limited to a requirement for them to attend court with the children3. Most of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was repealed by the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 although the provision to bind-over parents was retained under s150. Under this section a bind-over can remain in place for a maximum of 3 years or until the child attains the age of 18, which ever is the sooner. This section can also make it so that the parent is bound over to ensure that the child complies with any community sentence that has been imposed on them4. Prior to the 2000 Act parenting orders were brought into being through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 aimed at making parents responsible for the actions of their children. These orders range from making the children attend school to curfews and enforcing their children from association with certain persons. The general theme of parenting orders is to teach the parents how to control their child which is achieved by making them attend a counselling or guidance programme and can be ordered for periods up to 3 months5. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 added a requirement that in some circumstances the parents will be ordered to attend a residential course6. Since the introduction of Anti Social Behaviour Orders there has been an increased emphasis on making parents responsible for the actions of their children. Failure to control their children adequately can lead to the parents being forced out of their family home if they are living in rented accommodation, especially in situations where the house is owned by the local authority or a housing association. As with bind-overs parents can face criminal charges and fines for failing to comply with a parenting order. It would seem from the legislation above that the general notion is that punishing the child is inadequate in solving the problems associated with young offenders and that the only way to ensure that the youths alter their behaviour is to place sanctions on those who have parental responsibility for them. Given the increase in young offenders since the introduction of the legislation mentioned above, it would appear that these measures are not working and that parents are being penalised for the actions of their children. Muncie (2000) believes that the changes that have been brought in by the new legislation are focussed on ‘responsibilisation’. He argues that the government is using this as a means of crime control by placing the onus on the offender to change their behaviour7 rather than by offering rehabilitation programmes to assist. The needs of young offenders Very few of the policies in place to deal with young offenders actually address the needs of those offenders. Research published by the Youth Justice Board found that 15% of young offenders had housing needs8. The survey also found that those offenders who had been given community penalties for their crimes were even more likely to experience problems with housing. 48% of young offenders serving community penalties were found to be having difficulties securing accommodation. The Youth Justice Board report also noticed a correlation between the number of young offenders who have been looked after in care and those experiencing difficulty in obtaining accommodation and in rehabilitation. It could be argued from this that punishing young offenders actually increases their likelihood to re-offend as they are more likely to resort back to criminal activity especially since many are likely to be homeless once released from custody. A study carried out by the Social Exclusion Unit9 suggested that re-offending can be prevented through the provision of stable accommodation. In their research they discovered a 20% reduction in the rate of recidivism in situations where the offender was provided with suitable accommodation upon release. The Government has attempted to address this issue through the Children (Leaving Care) Regulations 2001, however, the definition of ‘suitable accommodation’ as defined in the Regulations is too widespread and open to interpretation, such that the Regulations do not generally achieve the anticipated aim. A further area that is largely ignored by the authorities in respect of the needs of the young offender centres on the mental health of the offender. In 2002 the Youth Justice Board commissioned a study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the provision of mental health care for young offenders for both those in custody as well as those in the community. Consideration was also to be given to the education of young offenders as well as their relationships within society. The survey found that 31% of those studied had mental health problems, 36% had educational needs or were unemployed and 48% had difficulty forming social relationships. The research also highlighted that one in five of the young offenders studied had learning disabilities such as dyslexia. The needs of each of those studied was assessed using the Salford Needs Assessment Schedule for Adolescents. This form of assessment is recognised by Kroll et al (1999) for its good ‘psychometric properties’. The technique used involves an interview with the subject designed to gather information on the severity of the symptoms of the interviewee. Part of the assessment considers the level of co-operation of the participant and whether the participant is aware of the problem. Other assessments used in the study included the Weschler Abbreviated Schedule Interview10 and the Weschler Objective Reading Dimension11. The research highlighted that 74% of the sample studied had come from broken homes and over a third of the sample had been in care at some point. Only 16% of the interviewees attended mainstream education with the remainder receiving other forms of educational training. Many had an IQ below 70 which identified them as having some kind of learning disability. Researchers were asked to consider the young offenders in the terms of the risks these offenders posed in terms of their behaviour and in particular an aversion towards violent outbursts. The results revealed that 11% had problems associated with alcohol whilst 20% were involved to some degree with drugs. In relation to the aspect of violence the study disclosed that one in four of the participants had problems with aggression towards others whilst one in five were likely to display aggression towards property. Similar studies carried out by Teplin et al (2002) and Kroll et al (2002) also concluded that young offenders were more likely to be socially disadvantaged as well as having a degree of mental health problems and learning disabilities. These studies also revealed that there was a greater likelihood of re-offending by these individuals from those that were in the community rather than in custody. Risks associated with young offenders Farrington (2000) holds the opinion that with the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 youth crime has been placed within the ‘risk factor prevention paradigm’. Farrington believes that the primary aim of the youth justice system should be to prevent young offenders from committing crimes by considering the risk factors that are associated with offending. Graham and Bowling (1995) found in their research that the propensity for young people to commit crime can be increased through a variety of social and personal risks. Others believe that the risk of offending is associated with the ‘individual shortcomings of the young offenders’.12 It has also been expressed that young offender are a product of ‘faulty moral training in the family’ as well as ‘contact with delinquent peers13’. It has been argued that legislation reflects this notion of deficiencies within the family as being the primary cause of youth offending, as can be noted by the introduction of parenting orders14 and child safety legislation15. Children over the age of 10 can be subjected to reparation orders or supervision orders16. Macdonald (1997) found that most young offenders have suffered some form of ‘socio-economic deprivation’ which in turn leads to social exclusion. New Labour’s policy in tackling youth crime is aimed at increasing social inclusion through morality changes rather than structural changes17. Kemshall (2002) argues that ‘this is a retreat from social justice as social inequalities… are reframed as individual risks, experienced and negotiated individually’. Conclusion It would appear from the above that the government refuse to accept that the needs of the young offender can have a substantial impact on their behaviour. When legislating against youth crime the focus is on apportioning blame on an individual basis. Ignoring the social factors of the offender as well as the mental health needs and educational problems means that the youth is more likely to re-offend upon release as the cause of the problem has not been addressed at all. In order for youth justice to be effective the government need to look at the needs of the child to be able to determine whether addressing these needs might impact in the likelihood of re-offending. Placing the blame on the parents has had little impact as is evidenced by the increase rather than decrease in criminal activity of the young people. The youths are not deterred from criminal behaviour in the knowledge that those with parental responsibility will be punished, in fact, in some cases it is likely to increase the chance of offending especially where there are conflicts between the parent and the child. The Youth Crime Action Plan is focussed on trying to prevent young people from going astray18. The Plan aims to achieve this through working with the parents of potential offenders to make the parents face up to their responsibilities for teaching the children how to behave in a socially acceptable manner. Although in essence the plan seems to be a good idea the transferral of responsibility onto the parent of the offender demonstrates the Government’s failure to see the real issues that are affecting the behaviour of these youths. References Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Criminal Justice Act 1982 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Children and Young Persons Act 1963 Criminal Justice Act 1991 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Gray P. (2005) ‘The politics of risk and young offenders’ experiences of social exclusion and restorative justice’. The British Journal of Criminology 45: p 938 http://www.yjb.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2694FC9E-FC79-4FB7-B049-CA94A297018E/0/AccommodationSurvey.pdf Social Exclusion Unit: Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, July 2002 Hannah-Moffat (1999) ‘Moral Agent or Actuarial Subject: Risk and Canadian Women’s Imprisonment’, Theoretical Criminology, 3: 71–94. Children Act 1989 Children Act 2004. Children and Young Person’s Act 1969 Children and Young Person’s Act 1998 Stenson (2001), ‘The New Politics of Crime Control’, in K. Stenson and R. R. Sullivan, eds, Crime, Risk and Justice: The Politics of Crime Control in Liberal Democracies, 15–28. Devon: Willan. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/publications/youthcrimeactionplan/ Arthur R. (2005) ‘Punishing parents for the crimes of their children’. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 44:233 Gelsthorpe L. (1999) ‘Youth crime and parental responsibility’. In Bainham A, Day Sclater S, Richards M (Eds.). What is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis(Hart Publishing, Oxford). Criminal Justice Act 1991 Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 Home Office. (2003b) Bind Overs: A Power for the 21st Century: A Consultation Document, London Muncie J. (2000) ‘Pragmatic Realism? Searching for Criminology in the New Youth Justice’. In Goldson B (Ed.). The New Youth Justice(Russell House Publishing Ltd, Lyme Regis). Children (Leaving Care) Regulations 2001 Kroll, L.,Woodham, A., Rothwell, J., et al (1999) Reliability of the Salford Needs Assessment Schedule for Adolescents. Psychological Medicine, 29, 891 Psychological Corporation (1992) Wechsler Objective Reading Dimensions. London:Harvant & Bruce. Psychological Corporation (1999) Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence.London:Harvant & Bruce. Teplin, L. A., Abram,K.M.,McCelland,G.M., et al (2002) Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59,1133 Kroll, L., Rothwell, J., Bradley,D., et al (2002) Mental health needs of boys in secure care for serious or persistent offending: a prospective, longitudinal study. Lancet, 359,1975^1979. http://www.csas.org.uk/upload/documents/webpage/Conference%20III/CSAS%20III%20Young%20Offenders%20Brief.pdf Farrington, D, (2000), ‘Explaining and Preventing Crime: The Globalisation of Knowledge’, Criminology, 38: 1–24. Graham, J. and Bowling, B. (1995), Young People and Crime. London: Home Office Kemshall, H. (2002), ‘Effective Practice in Probation: An Example of "Advanced Liberal" Responsibilisation?’, Howard Journal, 41: 41–58. MacDonald, R., ed. (1997), Youth, the ‘Underclass’ and Social Exclusion. London: Routledge Read More