Youth Justice System

The Youth Justice System went through lots of change over the past 25 years and the laws have evolved even today. If you are thinking about youth crime, most people think of gang related crimes but there are lots of kinds of offence inside youth crime. The most common is drug-taking or drug dealing, but unfortunately we can meet many serious crime which caused by youth, it includes murder as well. Have you ever wondered why for example 10 years old killers are behind bars? Youth crimes are maybe the most difficult to make judgements, so the laws have been changed and getting tighter a lot. In my assignment I will write about the changes of the youth justice system in the past 25 years.
Nearly twenty-five years ago in 1988 the Criminal Justice Act published. This Act tightened the custody system on youth offenders, and specified activities as a statutory alternative to custody. The youth custody centres and detention centres amalgamated into young offender institutions. One year after a new legislation appeared. In 1989 the Children Act abolished care orders and supervision orders in criminal proceedings; furthermore they established a separate family proceedings court so the juvenile court could deal purely with offending.
The tragic death of James Bulger (age of two) in 1993 by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged ten encouraged the Criminal Justice System to make the YJS tighter. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were then locked up in isolated secure units for nine months until their trial for murder in an adult court.
The first action was from the Audit Commission, who published a report, Misspent Youth, in 1996, which wasn’t satisfied with the YJS, it said the YJS is not efficient and it’s too expensive. One year later the Home Office published to White Paper (Labour), No More Excuses, which was talking about a reform for the YJS. These set the basis for the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) (‘the 1998’s act). Although the principle, and statutory aim of the YJS is preventing offending, another aim is to make offenders, and their parents, face up to their offending behaviour and take responsibility for it. To achieve this 'the 1998 ' act abolished the presumption of Doli Incapax for 10-14 year olds. This meant that 10-14 year old offenders could not excuse their offending behaviour by saying that they thought it was just naughty; as opposed to seriously wrong. In addition, 'the 1998 ' act introduced parenting orders to help parents control the behaviour of their children through counselling sessions and additional requirements such as ensuring their child gets to school every day. The CDA also introduced a national Youth Justice Board (YJB) to establish multi-agency Youth Offending Teams, whereby legitimising the YJB to initiate penal orders such as: Reparation, Action Plan, Supervision, Detention and Training Orders. Parenting, Child Safety, Child Curfew Schemes were also new developments. The most contentious initiative was the introduction of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). The job of the YJB was to monitor the running of the youth justice system and the provision of the youth justice services and also the national standards and establishing the right performance measures. What also the 1998 Act made possible was for the home secretary to give the board more powers which included the YJB becoming the commissioning body of all the placements that are under 18 in a secure facility on remand or have a sentence from the courts. The YJB was also given control over commissioning places including prison services YOTs, secure training centres (STCs) and local authority secure units. This is also strength as it brings together all the agencies under one roof you could say and so the aims are understood by all and are the same this can only help. The reason the YJB and the YOTs were set up in the first place was because according to Muncie (2009:297) investigations from the Public Accounts Committee, Audit commission and the National Audit Office recommended and supported subjugating professional skills independent managerial ideals of what works, which could attach certain resources to credible and successful outcomes and which could initiate responsibility to law and order from a central state to a sequence of semi-independent local partnerships which will include privatized bodies and voluntary agencies. Words such as individual need, rehabilitation, reformation, penal purpose and due process are replaced by techniques of classification, risk assessment and resource management changes all the earlier understanding of law and order from understanding motivations of crime to making crime bearable through universal coordination. This is a total difference from earlier ways and managerial system is thought to lower the standard or expectations of what a government can achieve in the youth justice system. Youth offenders are usually refer to a variety of things such as youths that hang out causing trouble making a nuisance of them and to their neighbours, making noise, vandalising property, littering, and causing graffiti to public property and drunkenness. This has been a priority in England and Wales, the key to New Labour was to strengthen the ability of the criminal justice system so they could treat disorder and the lack of respect but serious crimes too as it was clear that disorder was rising and was affecting neighbourhoods and also that it was a sign of times to come more serious crimes. The police and courts were said to be powerless against the nuisance and the anti-social behaviour that was being caused and that this was being mixed in with impunity. Second at the centre was a program and wish not just to reduce crime and disorder, but to encourage a process of civil renewal and civic responsibility. Third the broken windows theory was taken aboard a it was believed that a failure to accept zero tolerance policing of lesser serious offending and signs of disorder could only further destroy already deprived and marginalized communities. The "Home office review, 58% were made on under 18 year olds and a further 16% on those aged between 18 and 21. There are certain steps in this that are positive.
These community civil injunctions can be taken against an individual or a group of individuals (e.g. families) whose behaviour is considered 'antisocial '. The Home Office (1997) states that the government should have undeniable powers to remand and by this to secure accommodation for young people who are of the age 10-16 and are awaiting trial. And so The Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 included in its provisions to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 which was to allow courts to remand 12-16 years olds directly to secure local authority accommodation with certain conditions. But this was not put into operation. The conservatives had started a building programme which was for 170 new local authority secure places, there completion date was 1998. The Act provides a range of new interventions and punishments to help local communities and youth justice agencies take effective action to tackle youth crime. These include new powers to enable early, targeted intervention to deal with anti-social behaviour and to divert the very young from crime.Also detention and training orders, these will give powers the Home Office (1997) states can be used for 10-17 year olds and courts can use these only if it is a very serious crime and if they are persistent offenders and the court believes it is needed to protect the public. This will also added to 10-11 year olds but would only be permitted by parliament if seen to be needed. The length of the sentence will be divided, half of it will be in custody and half in community supervision and this also could be adjusted if good behaviour is seen. This is a good as it does not just impose a detention where by this can harden the youth and in some cases lead to further crimes but with the community supervision would let the offender know that they have been given a chance to mend their ways.
The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) introduced a new mandatory sentencing disposal - the referral order for 10-17 year olds pleading guilty for the first time. Part 2 of the Act makes provision for witnesses who find giving evidence in proceedings difficult.
Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) were launched in July 2001 with an aim to target persistent young offenders. ISSP 's are the most rigorous non-custodial interventions made available. They consist of a mixture of intensive monitoring of young offenders movements e.g., electronic tagging, voice verification, restorative justice and also education and training to address the offending behaviour.
Since 2007 the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCHF) has been interpreted as heralding a more child centred approach to young offending (K269 - Update Supplement pg.36). Every Child Matters and Aiming High for young people has made changes to the way young offenders are being dealt with taking on board a more welfare based approach while trying to work on tackling the reasons for offending rather than just punishing the offence. Always as a direct conflict for policy makers is the public’s wish for Governments to be seen to be tacking youth crime and anti-social behaviour harshly with much of public feeling that the law is too lenient. There has always been conflict between the welfare Model and the justice model, which holds a more "get tough" approach. More recently governments have tried to change their approach to Youth Offending in trying to target youth crime in a more proactive way, rather than punishing all crimes equally. Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 placed a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to reduce the need to bring criminal proceedings against children and to instead concentrate on more preventative work (Workbook 3, pg. 40). In the recent Youth Crime Action Plan 2008, it states that prevention will be tackled by addressing the root causes of crime. A key change has been replacing cautions with a system of reprimands and warnings. New punishments for young offenders like Individual Support Orders (ISO) and the Youth Justice Boards Youth inclusion Programme seeks to reduce offending by funding schemes in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods where children are at most risk of offending. Overall the new plans and approaches hoped to see an end to continued offending and for custodial sentences given to young offenders for less serious crimes. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 introduces the Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) which could be given and carry a degree of monitoring, and also place an offender with foster carers, a lesser sentence than being placed in custody (K269 Update Supplement, pg.44). A DTO (Detention and Training Order could be given to a young offender but only when they have committed the most serious of crimes or if the child is a persistent offender (Workbook 3, pg.71).
The Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) was introduced in 2008 and within the order was an YRO with fostering. This is seen to be a soft approach by many victims of crimes; however research has shown that it is very successful in working with offenders to change behaviours.
Despite policies designed to tackle youth crime in Britain, gang violence in on the increase and so too is violent crime committed by young people. Although the government would state it has clearly tried to cut down the number of young offenders entering custody, the Prison Reform Trust states that between 1991 and 2006 the number of children sentenced to custody has doubled in England and Wales (www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk), which begs the question is the new legislation really working. It is clear that initiatives and the work of the YOT 's go a long way in attempting to cut crime and offences committed by young people, but they can only protect as far as the law and legislation allows.
BibliographyGoldson, B. Muncie, J. (2006), Youth Crime and Justice, London, Sage Publications
Home Office, (1997), White Paper, No More Excuses: A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales
Muncie, J. (2009), Youth and Crime, 3rd edition, London, Sage publications
Maguire, M. Morgan, R and Reiner, R. (2002), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Open University (2006) K269 Social Care, Social Work and the Law, Workbook 3 The Criminal Justice and Youth Justice Systems, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Open University (2009) K269 Update Supplement, Workbook 3 The Criminal Justice and Youth Justice Systems, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Sctraton P. (2004), Childhood in Crisis, Taylor & Francis

Bibliography: oldson, B. Muncie, J. (2006), Youth Crime and Justice, London, Sage Publications Home Office, (1997), White Paper, No More Excuses: A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales Muncie, J. (2009), Youth and Crime, 3rd edition, London, Sage publications Maguire, M. Morgan, R and Reiner, R. (2002), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Open University (2006) K269 Social Care, Social Work and the Law, Workbook 3 The Criminal Justice and Youth Justice Systems, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Open University (2009) K269 Update Supplement, Workbook 3 The Criminal Justice and Youth Justice Systems, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Sctraton P. (2004), Childhood in Crisis, Taylor & Francis