What Are the Implications for Anti-discriminatory and Anti-oppressive Practice - Essay Example

Critically consider how far social policy meets the needs of black and ethnic minority children and their families? What are the implications for anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice? Critically consider how far policy around youth offending has been shaped by moral panic and political expediency? The promotion of equality and inclusion as well as the value of diversity in practice are at the helm of new initiatives aimed at combating discrimination and oppression within the Youth Justice System. Accordingly, public authorities in the United Kingdom have a duty to promote racial equality and end discriminatory practices. Discrimination promotes oppressive policies and the unequal treatment of youth within the justice system. It was recently shown that a higher proportion of black and mixed-parentage males are remanded in custody (when compared to their white counterparts), according to a comprehensive study commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (15). Recent studies like the one above demonstrate the persistence of discrimination within the justice system. Attempts are presently being made to counteract the serious joint problems of discrimination and oppression with youth justice. Notions of justice and equality are at the heart of the reforms currently being implemented within the Youth Justice System. Although the promotion of equality and anti-discrimination measures are not new to the Youth Justice System – they have in fact been under implementation for more than four years – these initiatives are important because they seek to tackle significant institutional issues such as discrimination against visible minorities within the UK’s Youth Justice arena. Seeking to address the evolution of Youth Justice initiatives, this essay will discuss what has been introduced and evaluate the originality of these new initiatives. Accordingly, we will explore the principles underpinning the initiatives and discuss the consequences of these initiatives for both society and young people within the Youth Justice realm. The effectiveness of these initiatives in dealing with the problem of youth crime will be analyzed and we will critically evaluate what is missing from youth justice provision. Our analysis will focus primarily on the anti-discrimination measures presently being implemented in the United Kingdom’s Youth Justice System and key terms, including discrimination, exclusion, racism, sexism, prejudice, diversity and labeling will be defined to help outline the parameters of this essay. The legal framework for the application of anti-discriminatory practice in youth justice will be elaborated upon and followed by an analysis of the representation of individuals and groups within the Youth Justice System. Finally, this essay will consider why it is important to take discrimination and oppression seriously within the Youth Justice System and how the promotion of diversity and inclusiveness can help tackle these problems. We now turn to an introduction to the history of juvenile delinquency and analyse how far policy around youth offending has been shaped by morality and questions of social mores. Juvenile Delinquency in the 19th Century Juvenile delinquency is an important subject which has been at the forefront of scholarly attention in recent times. Despite the fact that there is renewed interest in the subject, serious considerations of juvenile delinquency have been evolving since the middle of the 19th century. Accordingly, since the onset of Victorian era ideals surrounding the ability of society to handle juveniles who are behaving in a delinquent manner, much attention has been given to the issues surrounding youth crime, youth violence and overall juvenile delinquent behavior. Seeking to address the issues associated with juvenile delinquency in the 19th century with respect to how juvenile delinquent behavior was understood with reference to the norms and expectations of the era, the following hopes to provide a thorough and concise analysis of perceptions of juvenile delinquency before, as well as after, the 19th century (see Rouček 1958). Models of Criminality and Delinquency What are the different models for crime during the early part of the 19th century? During this period there were a variety of models of the causes of criminal behavior as well as delinquency; these models were applicable to both young offenders as well as adults. Accordingly, in 1835 a psychiatrist by the name of Prichard introduced the concept of “moral insanity” and this referred to deviations from normative behavior and was inherently hinged upon the notion that crime represents a moral affront to wider society and that there was a psychiatric basis to criminal behavior. During this period, there was an overriding concern with the morality of actions and the supposed immorality of juvenile delinquents and adult offenders. Other scholars such as Morel explained criminal behavior through the lens of degeneracy, and the inherent degenerate behavior of the criminal mind. During this era, scholar Lombroso established his now infamous classification of criminals which focused on physical features such as a small skull, heightened cheekbones, and a retreating forehead. These features were supposed to emphasize the subhuman characteristics of the real would criminal. Accordingly during this era, the juvenile delinquent as well as the adult criminal were seen as having unique physical characteristics and were classified in a subhuman context. What is important to know during this period is that both the young offenders and adult criminals were perceived in the same light: they were morally depraved; they engaged in degenerate behavior, their physical characteristics were subhuman and they could not be rehabilitated. During the early part of the 19th century psychology reigned supreme with respect to criminal behavior and the theories aimed at understanding the criminal mind. By the middle half of the 19th century and towards the 20th century there was a fundamental transformation in the theories surrounding criminal behavior, both with respect to youth criminals and adult terminals, and sociological explanations for cruel behavior started to gain precedence. During this early period, however psychological explanations significantly influenced the criminal justice field and as well as peoples perceptions of juvenile delinquent behavior (Hirschi 17-33; Binder 101-133). Antecedents to Reform Changes in the treatment of young offenders began in earnest during the 19th century. In addition to changes in the treatment of young offenders, there were also changes in the perceptions of juvenile crime and juvenile delinquency. Although youth crime in a modern context is topical, the issues surrounding youth crime were brought to the fore during the height of the 19th century. Accordingly, youth crime prior the middle 19th century was perceived much differently than it is today. As a result the middle of the 19th century can be seen by many as an important turning point in the historiography of juvenile crime. During the 19th century a series of reforms were undertaken which substantially changed peoples perceptions of youth violence and youth crime. Accordingly, this was a pivotal period of change in the perception as well as the treatment of juvenile thunders and juvenile criminals. Prior to the 19th century there was little intervention on behalf of authorities in juvenile crime; following a series of reforms which were undertaken in Britain during the 19th century the foundations for the current juvenile justice system which pervades the modern Western world was established. Prior to these reforms juveniles were punished and often treated like adults. Following the reforms the foundations for the modern juvenile justice system were laid and the perceptions of young people who committed crimes were fundamentally changed and differed significantly from those from the past. During this period of reform of the system, emphasis was placed upon the separation of youth and adult criminals as well as the perception that young people could be reformed. Additionally, there arose the belief that punishment need not be the overriding societal concern with respect to young offenders and juvenile delinquency. During the middle of the 19th century, an understanding of the environmental circumstances and the social situations which were part of the existence of young criminals were brought to the fore and were seen as by many as important and relevant preconditions for the lives of young criminals. Social forces, as well as the important issues surrounding parental authority or lack thereof, played a very important role in reforming the criminal justice system with respect to young people. What are the are anti-discrimination initiatives currently being employed in the United Kingdom? (Williams and McGee 227-231) Anti-Discrimination Initiatives Discrimination is often described as the prejudicial treatment of others based upon certain real or perceived characteristics. It is generally done on the basis of race, colour, sex, age, language, sexual orientation, religion and disability. An example of discrimination would be the refusal to hire an Asian worker. Discrimination is often based upon pre-held beliefs, judgments and stereotypes about people and groups. Social exclusion refers to the alienation and disenfranchisement of individuals or groups from wider society. Examples of overt – and state sanctioned – social exclusion include Nazi policies towards Jews in Germany prior to, as well as during, World War II. Racism is related to xenophobia and generally defined as discrimination based upon the racial groups in which people belong. Racism involves prejudice, discrimination and can often lead to violence. Racism which is institutionalised is embedded within a culture, organization or society and is an established custom or norm within that social system. Historically, it could be argued that the immigration system in the United Kingdom institutionalised racist policies and practice towards non-whites during the early part of the twentieth century (Panayi 1994). Sexism is the belief in the superiority of one gender over another. The most common form of sexism would be the belief women are somehow inferior or lest worthy than men (although sexism towards men does exist, for more information on the misandry phenomenon, see Nathanson and Young 2001). In their study on girls and youth crime, Gelsthorp and Sharpe found sharp contrasts in the youth court sentencing structure for boys and girls, both historically as well as in a modern context (49). Negative terminology within the Youth Service System can lead to discrimination and ensuing levels of oppression towards youth. Labeling is a negative term which means defining someone based upon their appearance or behaviour (real or perceived). A young man with a Mohawk haircut could be labeled as a punk or skinhead solely based on the style of his hair. From a youth justice perspective, a young black man may be subject to more stops and searches by police, and be labeled as more likely to engage in crime, due to the colour of his skin (the Home Office reports that black and Asian men were more likely to be stopped and searched by police than their white counterparts, see Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, 2006). Stigmatisation is related to social marginalization and refers to the social disapproval of personal characteristics and/or beliefs which are counter to commonly accepted social norms. Until quite recently, homosexuals faced severe stigmatization in the UK and were marginalized due to their sexual preference. Prejudice refers to prejudgement and the making up one’s mind about something or someone before all of the facts are known. An example of prejudice would be the presumption of guilt by a police officer towards an Asian youth, randomly stopped and searched outside of a crime scene (Stephenson, Giller & Brown 38-262). Positive terminology includes diversity, equality and inclusion. Each term described below can be used to counteract the effects of oppression and discrimination within youth justice and work towards more inclusive practices. Diversity means embracing difference and is best described as a social and political philosophy aimed at recognizing, celebrating and maintaining difference (British Council 2008). Equality refers to the belief that all are created equal and deserve equal treatment. From a youth justice perspective this would mean that everyone is treated equally before the law. Inclusion means ensuring that all are included. For example, the Commission for Racial Equality and recent human rights legislation attempt to be as inclusive as possible in their outlook and practices (Youth Justice Board 2001). Public authorities in the United Kingdom have a duty to promote racial equality and end discrimination. The Commission for Racial Equality – now called the Equality and Human Rights Commission – is an organization independent of government with the aim of promoting diversity and equality for all. In tandem with the Youth Justice Board, the Commission for Racial Equality published a framework for ending oppression and discrimination within the Youth Justice System entitled “Achieving Equality within the Youth Justice Service” (2001). This program sought to end to discriminatory and oppressive practices within the Youth Court System and was inspired by the Race Relations Act, 2000 (2-4). In fact “the new ‘Public Duty’ provision of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, makes racial equality central to the whole range of youth justice policy decision making” today (5). This anti-discriminatory legislation has been employed to help tackle the joint problems of discrimination, prejudice and subsequent oppression within the Youth Justice System. Discrimination within the Youth Justice System can take a variety of forms. Visible minority youth (black, Asian or other) may be subject to more random police stop and searches, may be less likely to be cautioned by a magistrate and may face higher rates of incarceration. In a study commissioned to look at race and the criminal justice system – not solely the youth system – it was determined that although black residents account for 2% of the population aged 10 and over in England and Wales, their rates of incarceration stand at 12% of the total prison population. This is a whopping and disproportionate 600% increase relative to their total population size in both England and Wales! Accordingly, black and Asians are more likely than whites to be arrested and face longer periods of incarceration (Home Office 6-11). Gelsthorp & Sharpe found that girls within the youth justice system faced different hurdles in their encounters with the Youth Justice System and were more likely to face institutionalised sexism and paradoxically, more leniency at the time of sentencing (52-61). According to a recent study commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YBJ), in which more 17,000 case decisions were studied, the YBJ discovered the following practices within the Youth Justice System: 1) A higher rate of prosecution and conviction of mixed-parentage young males 2) A higher proportion of prosecutions involving black young males 3) A greater proportion of black and Asian males that had been remanded in custody before sentence, especially the greater proportion of black males remanded whose proceedings had not resulted in a conviction 4) A slightly greater use of custody for Asian males 5) A much higher probability that a black male would, if convicted in a Crown Court, receive a sentence of 12 months or more 6) A slightly greater tendency for ethnic minorities to have been committed to the Crown Court (Youth Justice Board 21-22) This study concluded that there were “differences which were consistent with discriminatory treatment” when comparing the treatment of whites to the treatment of non-whites, as well as to the treatment of males versus females (Youth Justice Board 20). These finding promote the argument that oppression of minorities exists with the Youth Justice System and may even point to a larger problem of institutionalised racism within said system. Unfortunately non-white youth continue to face discrimination despite measures to ensure inclusive and equal practices. Girls, used by Gelsthorp and Sharpe, to refer to women between the ages of 10-17, have historically been overlooked and marginalize within youth justice(Gelsthorp & Sharpe 47). Describing the double standard faced by girls with the Youth Justice System, Gelsthorp & Sharpe argue that “offending girls were not only seen as breaking the law, but also gender role expectations” (48). During the 1990s, recorded juvenile crime increased more amongst girls than boys, with a particular increase in drug-related offences and violent crime (Gelsthorp & Sharpe 51). In fact, the arrests for violent crime amongst girls have reportedly increased more than 250% over the past quarter century (Rutter et al 154). Significantly, incidents of youth crime by girls are on the rise and youth justice policy makers are starting to understand and tackle the challenges faced by girls within the youth justice system. This approach must address the unique needs of girls within youth justice with an eye to further inclusion. There are a variety of principles underpinning these new initiatives and they include competing notions of universal justice and a renewed desire to ensure the fairness of youth justice in the UK. Although many of the initiatives currently being implemented are now new, in fact anti-discrimination measures have been in place for some time, the focus in 2009 is on ensuring a fairer and just Youth Justice System. Regardless of the originality of these initiatives, they remain important and are being addressed with renewed vigor. From a consequentialist perspective, the embrace of diversity and attempts at combating institutionalized racism with Youth Justice will be positive for both the wider society as well as to young offenders. Young people can expect more fairness and anti-discriminatory treatment with the System and the result may very well be a decrease in overall levels of crime. By addressing some of the institutionalized impediments to an effective Youth Justice System, these reforms promise to be positive and will hopefully help ally some of the problems associated with youth crime in the UK. Competing influences on social policy with respect to youth justice provision include the “conservative” approach which includes harsher sentences for young people who have committed crimes, a focus on retribution as opposed to rehabilitation and a more “American-centric” view of youth justice. An alternative perspective, one which has historical been advocated by left-leaning politicians and has been associated with the increasingly centrist Labour Party is one which focuses on rehabilitation instead of retribution and has been the driving force behind the recent reforms underway in the UK Youth Justice System. It comes as no surprise then that many of the anti-discriminatory initiatives discussed here began under the tenure of Tony Blair and continue to this day with his successor Gordon Brown. Racism is a global problem but one which is very much present in the United Kingdom today and with important ramifications across a variety of social institutions. These inititiatives are long overdue in an institutional system in which visible minorities are disproportionally represented and when a higher proportion of black and mixed-parentage males are remanded in custody as compared to their white counterparts (Youth Justice 2009). These attempts at correcting the racial imbalances within the Youth Justice System are integral to ensuring equality and the fair application of British law. Attempts to combat discrimination within the System are now underway. As we have seen, class, gender and race are very important when it comes to Youth Justice in the UK. Concluding Remarks During the middle half of the 19th century, questions of juvenile delinquency where a reflection of the fundamental changes taking place in and British society. Through the establishment of precedent in United Kingdom, it was established that the state had an important role to play in ensuring that juveniles conformed to the moral norms and expectations of society but also that the state could intervene and sidestep the parents when it came to providing rehabilitation to young offenders. While juvenile delinquency was perceived by many to be a real issue and an important social concern, the issues surrounding youth criminal behavior were actually heavily influenced by psychiatry, psychology and what we see now as unscientific ideas about criminal behavior. Thus questions of moral insanity, the general behavior and quality scientific analyses of the size of craniums as well hold hosts of other supposedly criminal characteristics, heavily influenced the youth criminal justice field during this era. It has been established that discrimination does exist within the UK Youth Justice System. Discrimination leads to oppression and the unequal treatment of youth before magistrates and the courts of law. New legislation and programs, including initiatives such as “Achieving Equality within the Youth Justice Service”, promote diversity and inclusiveness and will help counteract the social ills of prejudice, discrimination and oppression. Although recent studies demonstrate the persistence of discrimination within the justice system, policy makers are currently tackling the problems associated with the Youth Justice System with an eye to making it more inclusive, representative and fair. REFERENCES Achieving Equality within the Youth Justice Service. Youth Justice Board, 2008. Binder, A 1998. “Juvenile Delinquency, ”Annual Review of Psychology 39:253- 82. Differences or Discrimination? Youth Justice Board, 2009. “Equality and Diversity in the UK” 2009. The British Council. Last accessed April 19 2009 Gelsthorp, L & Sharpe, G 2006. “Gender, Youth Crime and Justice.” Youth Crime and Justice, Eds. Barry Goldson & John Muncie, Sage, London. 47-62. Hirschi, T. 2002. Causes of delinquency. New York: Transaction Publishers. Nathanson, P and Young, K 2001, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. Panayi, P 1995, Immigration, Ethnicity and Racism in Britain 1815-1945, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Rouček, J. S. 1958. Juvenile delinquency. New York: Ayer Publishing. Rutter, M., Hagell A, & Giller, H, 1998. Antisocial Behaviour by Young People Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System. Home Office, 2006. Stephenson, M , Giller, H & Brown, S 1997. Effective practice in Youth Justice. Willan, London. Williams, Sheila & McGee, Rob. 1994. “Attainment and Juvenile Delinquency,”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35(3): 441-459. Read More