Chapter 3
The functions of the current Youth Justice System (YJS)
Juvenile misbehavior has been one of main feature of criminological inquiry for a long period. The early to mid-ninetieth century saw the development of a constituent of thinking which mainly recognized the underlying idiosyncratic theory of the young offender (Great Britain, 2013, 21-9). Therefore, early stage in the advancement of methods of handling youth crime, the demand of castigation was majorly associated to a concern to reform errant children within their developmental years. The debate is mainly centered on the child’s aptitude as a nurturing moral and rational being and the capability to differentiate amidst right and wrong (Fitzpatrick, 2006, 145-198).
The Parkhurst Act 1838 was mainly legislated to dissuade young populace who affronted from becoming adult prisoners and the corresponding assaulting impacts of adults prisons and to preclude their extradition, objectives that were promoted in the Reformatory Schools Act 1854. Children Act of the years 1933,1963 and 1969 subsequent the underlying trend in association to the well-being approaches of the young individuals who affront in conjunction with the necessities for the children in need or in danger (Roberts, & Zuckerman, 2010, 112-9). While the elements of punishment are still present in this advancement, they are not central ideology. One of the fundamental advancement arising from the legislative alterations entail section 44 of the year 1933 Children and Young Persons Acts (Great Britain, 2013, 21-9). This Act states that youthful courts ought to take into consideration the well-being of the child in punishing, in not really having to make this a principal consideration. Whereas well-being promised mainly focus on the meetings requirements and convalescences, it has always been compromised by the underlying neo-conservative structures to have moral accountability and punishment. Moreover, justice means a obligation to individual rights and the corresponding due process, which have been continuously been transformed by the neo-liberal responsibilities and underlying neo-conservative retaliatory strategies (Watkins, Johnson, & Gibson, 2010, 124-175).
The two fundamental elements in the development of the youth justice system in England have frequently been termed as:
Welfare models of invention
Mainly consist of examination and intrusion of strategies that are deriving to a massive degree from psychodynamic approaches, ecological and corresponding system based approaches of comprehension and testing offending by young populace. There are diverse preparations of welfare approaches mainly entailing concentration on shortfalls of families in levitation their offspring and socializing external of the family. This approach frequently took the perception those interventions that ought to happen outside the judicial system (Mandelstam & Mandelstam, 2013, 156-178). For instance, cautioning young populace, residential care and administration within the community.
The Justice model
Justice approaches mainly entail the perception young populace ought to be subject to official judicial procedure, where their underlying rights before the law can be upheld, but can also result to sentence based results (Fitzpatrick, 2006, 145-198). The justice model assumes that the sentence is a primary rationale for the young justice system and that the sentence ought to be based on the tariff of escalation severity, reliant on on the seriousness of the offence and the corresponding committer’s criminal history.
The 1969 Children and Young Persons Act can be pinnacle of the well-being approach’s accomplishments in case it is fully enacted by the incoming Conservative administration entailing elements such as judgment and cautioning. Few elements that were legislated was in the form of 7/7 care order that was of unspecified length and could be made in criminal events (Liebmann, 2007, 234-9). This might results to numerous young individuals for very minor offences being away from their home and in the institutions for numerous of their childhood years for much longer durations as compared to the adults, who could be sentenced for rupturing ideas of proportionality. Successive Criminal Justice Acts in the years 1982, 1988 and 1991 introduced measures, which were envisioned to curb court from utilizing keeping except in most solemn cases. Concern to divert prevailing young populace away from interaction with adult criminals has long been a worry of the English system (Watkins, Johnson, & Gibson, 2010, 124-175). Nevertheless, this trend has now in effect been upturned; young offenders are more likely to be condemned to protective sentences within English in comparable to the European countries.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is made on the main principle for the underlying youth justice system in the prevention of offending. It has resulted to availability of a raft of modern and new orders mainly child safety orders, local child curfews, childcare orders, anti-social conduct orders and sex illegal orders. The modern Intensive Supervision and Surveillance programmes are mainly beleaguered at tenacious offenders, and are mainly intended tom offer a tough alternative to custody for the young populace placed on such orders, endangering them to surveillance within the community, which can be for one day (Great Britain, 2013, 21-9). Electronic tagging and the corresponding corroboration with supervision by devoted police in youth offending team staff were envisioned to illustrate such programmes. It also intended that the people that are placed on such programmes will be the subject of status, training and education programmes.
Net-widening mainly refers to the means in which policies are normally drawn more young populace into the criminal justice system within the last few decades. This includes pre-criminal behavior as the main trigger for the intervention and utilizing finer mesh in processing extra young individuals in the official youth justice system by reducing the usage of the underlying informal procedures such as cautioning. The cumulative outcome is that the underlying young people are mainly drawn into the formal justice system and are then endangered to the progressively intensive forms of intervention as experienced in the late twentieth and twenty first century (Roberts, & Zuckerman, 2010, 112-9). Many people referred to the corresponding government policies as an reassuring more castigatory response, resulting ultimately to the increasing use of safekeeping for the young individual in the youth justice system (Hooper, Ormerod & Murphy, 2010, 78-134).
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 mainly goals to aid susceptible and daunted witnesses grant the best evidence they can within the criminal events. This is mainly accomplished by permitting particular eyewitnesses entree to a range of superior measures where it is felt that their evidence will thereby be advanced. Decreasing of stress related with the court case will imply that susceptible witnesses are more confident and grant better testimony. Moreover, people who were unable to take part in the proceedings and were considered incompetent to provide evidence will get voice at the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. In circumstances of abuse prosecution case is frequently based wholly on the underlying evidence of a single witness particularly child. It is significant that prevailing evidence is in such conditions is purely presented. Previously, witnesses and corresponding complainants in the criminal proceedings possessed no fundamental assistance they required when offering evidence. Over the past years, numerous measures have been introduced in order to render the underlying court procedure less threatening, arising majorly from the corresponding understandings of the judiciary in both criminal and corresponding proceedings. These entail acquaintance visits, live associations and the like. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 currently offer numerous measures under single constitutional roof in enhancing relatively better consistency within the process application and corresponding criminal proceedings that is clarified for those who have passed through the process (Watkins, Johnson, & Gibson, 2010, 124-175). Therefore, susceptible and intimated witnesses, who may be previously considered to be unable to grant evidence in the criminal proceedings, encounter difficulty in granting evidence in regard to offering proper opportunity. Witnesses entail the mentally and physically disabled normally fear intimidation of underlying complainant of racial and domestic violence particularly children. Transcription of the court procedure less harrowing for people who have already been traumatized enough and exploiting the numbers of criticisms and witnesses, who can essentially grant evidence, is praiseworthy. Nevertheless, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 have its problems and mainly pointed out by the prevailing Di Birch (Roberts, & Zuckerman, 2010, 112-9). The Act offers no doubt in regard to the compassions falsehood. Moreover, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is a multifaceted Act is a significant impact in the criminal proceedings within the United Kingdom is executed (Liebmann, 2007, 234-9).
ASBO Act 2003
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 strengthened demands on the courts to make a parenting order where an ASBO is made for a period ten to fifteen years old, which permits Local Education Authorities to apply for a stand-alone parenting order in cases of the segregation or serious misbahaviour and for the YOT to relate for a parenting order where a child or young individual has affianced within the anti-social or criminal behavior. The Act also offers a statutory basis for LEAs and corresponding YOTs to enter into the parenting contracts. Parenting via intentional programmes, contracts and corresponding orders are thus utilized as a section of the local action on the anti-social behavior in diverse situations attracting a parenting order to an ASBO is not voluntarily participating in a parenting programme. The YJB via YOTs are massively responsible for the delivery of parenting interventions in association to crime and corresponding anti-social behavior, Financing comes from the YJB, local authorities, the populations in a single year.
ASBO is implemented in addressing the problems related with the criminal processes in place for prosecuting persistent minor offences. Before ASBO the Labour Party considered these processes to be too lengthy and heavily weighted in favour of the accused (Hooper, Ormerod & Murphy, 2010, 78-134). For instance, in the process of prosecution of repeat offences of a relatively minor nature the probable outcome was that every sole offence would be receive solely a small punishment. The underlying problem with such punishment is that it does not normally correspond to the prevailing cumulative impact of crimes on their victims and society in general. Moreover, prosecution of low level crimes is unbearable since the witness extortion. ASBO Act 2003 permit orders to be imposed devoid of frightening or intimidating populace in regard to the direct evidence. Moreover, breach of an ASBO Act normally results in a sentence of not more than five years (Watkins, Johnson, & Gibson, 2010, 124-175). The maximum sentence is the extra of the maximum sentences available to the magistrates in their underlying criminal capability statutory maxima for archetypal anti-social crimes such as intimidating behavior (Liebmann, 2007, 234-9).
Individual Support Orders were mainly introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Magistrates’ courts are mainly obliged to making an ISO, when making ASBO in case the court takes the perception that would prevent further anti-social behavior.
Education legislation makes it distinct that the parents are obliged to ensure that their school age children attend school regularly. In case they fail they will be liable to number of diverse interferences that range from casual interview with an education well-being officer (Roberts, & Zuckerman, 2010, 112-9). The Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the previous restriction that a parenting order could not make alongside a referral order.
Chapter 5
Sentencing in the Youth Justice System (YJS)
The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a renowned federal legislation that performs specific functions. It was introduced because of numerous youths who were being sent to the court and placed in the custody under the prevailing YOA for the minor offences that could be better settle outside the courts. YCJA have set out particular purpose and principles that guide judges in deciding on a suitable youth sentence. The mainly purpose of youth sentences is mainly to hold the youth sentencing answerable through imposing sanctions that is evocative consequences for then thus promoting their rehabilitation and restoration into the society. This subsequently leads to long term safeguarding of the public.
Fundamental principle of youth sentencing proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the extent of responsibility of the prevailing young person that is the sentence ought to fit the seriousness of the crime and take into consideration the maturity of the young individual involved and corresponding situations under which the crime is undertaken. Youth Criminal Justice Act also demands that the underlying comparable sentence be least obstructive alternative capable of accomplishing the purpose of sentencing and the alternative most likely to acclimatize and reintegrate the young individual. It ought to encourage a sense of accountability within the young person and acknowledgement of the harm committed. Sentence might also entail objectives in regard to denouncing the criminal behavior and daunting of the young individual from obligating further offences. In the process of considering sentence that a young person ought to serve in the youth custody facility, a judge ought to take into consideration all the prevailing alternatives apart from custody that are mainly judicious within the circumstance ,disbursing specific attention to the underlying conditions of uncharacteristic young individuals.
Youth Criminal Justice Act offers youth court judges with numerous diverse sentencing alternatives to dealing with the whole range of the youth crime. These normally include both prevailing community based sentences where the underlying youth serves their sentence within the community frequently under austere situations and corresponding custody and administration sentences, which entail both durations in a youth custody capability and duration of community administration. The maximum duration of youth sentence mainly ranges from two years to ten years contingent on the underlying offence undertaken and the king of sentence imposed (Sheehan, Mcivor & Trotter, 2011, 221-8). Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, custody sentence are normally intended principally for the ferocious offenders and staid repeat offenders. It also permits judges to impose an intensive rehabilitative custody and administration order in case a youth had been found guilty of a solemn intense offence and is mainly suffering from a mental psychosomatic and emotional disorder. Judges ought to look into options to custody when sentencing youth and should pay specific attention to the circumstances of the underlying indigenous young individuals. Sentences ought to involve underlying community be suitable to the offender’s level of participation and obligation for the crime and the significance of the crime (Hooper, Ormerod & Murphy, 2010, 78-134). Putting a youth offender within custody might be essential if case the case is serious, ferocious crimes where an offender possess no conformed with non-custodial previously. Moreover, serious offences might be raised to adult court.
According to the National Audit Office the recent advancements to the young justice system have resulted to the eradication in the recorder youth crime. Nevertheless, despite a twenty five percent decrease in regard to the volumes of the reoffending ,young criminals who receive more serious community sentences and corresponding custodial sentences continue as possible to insult again as they were solely ten years when the underlying youth justice system was enacted. Moreover, the approximate in the year 2009 the offending by the underlying young populace cost the economy of England amidst £8.5 billion and corresponding £11 billion. The present number of the initial entrants is the lowest because comparable records commenced in the year 2001 (Watkins, Johnson, & Gibson, 2010, 124-175). The prevailing number of the young populace held within the custody has massively decreased by fourteen percent in the previous years during the period when adult custodial population developed by fourteen percent. The proportion of the whole young offenders who reoffend decreased from forty percent in the year 2000 to corresponding thirty seven percent in the year 2008, with the underlying volume of the reoffending decreasing by twenty five percent.
Nevertheless, the rates of the reoffending for individuals who receive larger portion of the youth justice system’s resources are comparatively lesser encouraging. The proportion of the underlying young offenders receiving severe community sentences since the year 2000 have massively increased. Even though the underlying number of offences committed by the corresponding young populace had decrease the reform remains particularly cumbersome to majority of the offenders. Recent reforms to the corresponding system ought to aid in ensuring that the resources that are mainly directed at the offenders at peril of reoffending and prevention programmes that purely take the form of pragmatic approaches based on the underlying available evidence (Great Britain, 2013, 21-9). Seventy five percent of the Youth Offending Team administrators concur that it is cumbersome to find evidence of work for specific locations of their work. With the prevailing resources that are likely to decrease, the youth justice system is thus in a weak position of knowing activities that can maintain and ensure that the results do not depreciate.
Numbers of Young people in Custody – trends
The Young Justice System within England functions mainly to prevent offending and reoffending by underlying offspring and corresponding young populace under the prevailing age of 18 years. Young justice system is normally different to the corresponding adult system and mainly structured that address the requirements of the young people (Bailleau, Cartuyvels & Bailleau, 2010, 163-9). Young Justice Board is also an executive non-departmental public body and mainly ensures that the custody for young people is safe and secures thus addressing the offending behavior.
The underlying number of young people within the Young Justice System has continued to decrease in the year 2010 and 2011. The decrease is realized in the number entering the system in regard to the receiving disposals in and out of the prevailing court encompassing the people receiving custodial sentences. Since the years 2007 and 2008 there are fifty five percent fewer young populace entering the into the underlying system, thirty percent fewer young populace within the custody and corresponding twenty nine percent fewer re-offenses by the young populace. Whilst the underlying rate of the re-offending has been steady over the previous decade, the frequency of the re-offending had drastically decreased by seventeen percent since the year 2000 (Mandelstam & Mandelstam, 2013, 156-178).
Within the year 2009/2010 were 1,386,030 arrests of the corresponding 241,737 were of the populace aged ranging from 10 to 17 years (Bailleau, Cartuyvels & Bailleau, 2010, 163-9). Therefore, the age ranging 10 to 17 years is accounted for the prevailing 17% of entire arrests whilst 11% of the underlying population of England is offending age. There were 49,407 warnings and youth cautions in England in the year 2010/2011. This is depicted as a reduction of 30% on the underlying 70,734 populace in the year 2009/2010 and a corresponding decrease of 62% on the underlying 131,660 at the peak within the year 2006/2007. Moreover, there were existence of 7,507 penalty notices for the disorders in the age bracket ranging from 16 year and 17 years in the year 2010/2011 and corresponding 536 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders of the young people. The underlying number of the PNDs given to the young populace decreased by 30% since the year 2009/2010 and corresponding decrease of 64% since the peak within the year of 2006/2007.
In the year 2010/2011 was standing at 72, 011 court disposals to the young people from the age 10 to 17 in England. The total number of the disposals young people at the courts that have decreased by 8% in the year 2010/2011 whilst the number of the prevailing custodial disposals decreases by 10% in 2009/2010. Custody rate was 5.8% in 2010/2011 and fluctuated to 6% in the last five years. There were 85,300 young people supervised by the Young Offending Teams in 2010/2011 after decreasing by 20% from 2009/2010. Nevertheless, the prevailing group is extremely challenging to work out since they depict relatively higher prediction rate of re-offending.
The prevailing average population of the young people within the custody in the 2010/2011 was standing at 2,222 depicting 17% decrease as compared to the 2009/2010. The whole average duration spend within the custody decreased by dual days and mainly caused by duration taken in custody on remand. Detention and training Orders increased by two days whilst remand has decreased by 3 days and longer sentences it in and longer sentences it increased by 25 days.
The entire re-offending rate for the young people was standing 33.3% in the year ended2009/2010 having an average of 2.79 re-offences for every offender. The underlying rate of the re-offending was broadly steady over the previous decades whilst the average number of the re-offences for every re-offender that have decreased by 17% since the year 2000 (Watkins, Johnson, & Gibson, 2010, 124-175). Whereas the overall rate of the re-offending has been steady the number of the prevailing young people within the re-offending cohort has greatly reduced with the main reductions depicted among the people with no offences and receiving pre-court disposals. Due to this the young people entering the criminal justice system are on balance thus making it more challenging to operate (Hooper, Ormerod & Murphy, 2010, 78-134). Moreover, this is mainly depicted within the relatively higher predicted rate of re-offending and average previous number of the offences for every young populace.
Chapter 6
Summary and conclusion
Numerous states have made intensive efforts in reducing the number of youth within custody have realized notable strides. There has been clear variation in regard to the degree and direction of rate alteration among the prevailing states. Even though the appointment rates for the men have significantly decrease female rates have been increasing steadily. Despite the decrease within the custody population there is perpetual dominance by the youth of color, the appointment rate that is relatively greater.
Public fear of the juvenile crime has resulted in alteration in the misbehavior jurisdiction of the prevailing juvenile court. Since the year 1992,governmental and corresponding executive branch action within the prevailing states possessing imperfect to the juvenile court’s authority over the cases entailing serious, ferocious and chronic offenders and shifted the court’s philosophy from the rehabilitative custom of addressing the criminal at the expense of offense toward a more disciplinary system mainly focused on the underlying offense. For instance, since the year 1990 numerous states have amended their prevailing codes to unequivocally list public well-being as the main purpose of the juvenile system, list of punishment of offenders as principal and numerous purpose of the juvenile system. In the year 1992 ten states have adopted laws that make it relatively easier to arraign juvenile system in the prevailing adult criminal court (Bailleau, Cartuyvels & Bailleau, 2010, 163-9). Conviction of the underlying minor within the adult court mainly exposes the existing minor to the possibility of a state prison sentence rather than appointment within a juvenile capability offering rehabilitative programs.
Even though violent juvenile crimes normally catch captions and tend to possess massive influence in regard to the juvenile justice system, majority of the prevailing juvenile court cases entail far less somber crimes. Moreover, the bulk of the underlying court’s delinquency work is utilized in handling massive volume of existing crimes against the corresponding property such as destruction, motor vehicles robbery and pilfering. In the year 1992, police have made three million arrests of the juveniles countrywide. Approximately sixty seven percent results in the referral to the juvenile court. On the other hand, public point of view dictate serious charge of property offense within the underlying 57% of cases, which is an offense against an individual such as robbery and assault, 21% depicting public order offense entailing robbery conduct and represented by 17% whilst 5% depicts drug law desecration (Sheehan, Mcivor & Trotter, 2011, 221-8). Young people are not normally disproportionately responsible for the cases of violent crime that were committed rather than share property crimes (Hooper, Ormerod & Murphy, 2010, 78-134). 10-17 year mainly comprises of 13% of the entire United State population and is majorly responsible for the violent crimes cleared by the corresponding arrest with full 23% representing property crimes.
Despite the intricacies of the development stage, young adults within custody, other existing adults normally requirements are mainly based on their individual differences, different experiences and seriousness of the crimes that they are committed to. There is no need of allocating prevailing young adults to institutions since they fall within the age bracket of 18 to 20 years. Thus, better developmental requirements of the underlying young adults where there is allocation of the institutions that can offer the custodial environments that is best equipped in handling of the risk and corresponding resettlement requirements. Young adults are a particularly violate group and become increasingly distinct over the recent years that are mainly concentrated massively on the numbers of the young adults together that might escalate volatility (Tapper & Cross, 2010, 221-9). The focus of managing a regime is mainly based solely on the young adult age in order to ensure young adults thus they normally engage most successfully with rehabilitation and resettlement services thus helping in desisting from the corresponding offending and result productive lives. The benefits that a new approach normally bring to the young adults make alterations that enables people to ensure that the underlying adults are helpful to the broader reform agenda. Moreover, broader reform agenda act as an excellent opportunity to offer a steady framework in young adults’ management whilst concurrently offering the best stage from which can be useful from resettlement prisons and other supplementary proposed alterations to advance the gate provisions for the underlying adults (Mandelstam & Mandelstam, 2013, 156-178).
The factors which normally impact on the underlying custody levels and the corresponding actions that can be undertaken to address the established system. Significant management of custody is normally known as systematically and proactively applied by the underlying youth justice practitioners because of either action or inaction that possess profound effect on the result for a young individual (Tapper & Cross, 2010, 221-9). A lofty custody rate to certain degree become established as suitable proxy variable reflecting the capability of the YOT services in preventing offending, managing risks and ensuring public protections in case the child remains within the community. This notion aids in reinforcement of the payment outcomes initiatives suggested within the Breaking cycle. This is mainly applicable to the available resources that will theoretically be reliant on of the accomplishment of the YOTs thus eradicating the utilization of custody (Watkins, Johnson, & Gibson, 2010, 124-175). The view of sentences in regard to the offending ought to be dealt with in their respective location, norms and underlying thresholds. This is normally in line with the court’s cultures which is massively important. The underlying evidence depicts that diverse locations possess diverse discernments and measurements of the prevailing risk and significance, which results in diverse regional interpretations and results within sentencing. YOTs and corresponding sentences ought to be both be committed to ensuring that the prevailing young populace do not increase in the system virtuously on the foundation of the repeat staid and violent offending. In regard to the framework of diminishing alternatives, the capability to repeat orders and the corresponding intervention of identical lengths and situations ought to be a section of the procedure of aiding young people to remedy their underlying behavior thereby maturing and developing to become law enduring members of their existing communities (Sheehan, Mcivor & Trotter, 2011, 221-8).
It is significant that the prevailing localities that possess lofty levels of custody, a collaborative enquiry is instigated thus placing assessment of working processes and decisions to be realize. Strategies that normally entail mutual training, joint debate, and relatively greater consciousness of the effect of sentencing exercise, joint shared and checking procedures and good communities can aid in instilling awareness and confidence amidst parties within the exterior the court setting. Sentences require to be wholly conversant with confidence in community based alternatives and corresponding YOTs ought to be suitably advocate on behalf of the young populace thus producing educational, diagnostic and welfare reports for court, normally important for sentencing considerations and decisions. Young populace require to be involve in the processes, in comprehending the proceedings thus enabling them to make viable donations and offering involvements that efficiently engage in order to exploit on the underlying chances of a positive effect on their prospect behavior.
Bibliography
Great Britain. (2013). Youth justice: seventh report of session 2012-13. Vol. 1, Vol. 1. London, Stationery Office.
Watkins, M., Johnson, D., & Gibson, B. (2010). Youth justice and the youth court an introduction. Hook, Waterside. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=579164.
Great Britain. (2011). The proposed abolition of the Youth Justice Board: tenth report of session 2010-12. Vol. 1, Vol. 1. London, Stationery Office.
Great Britain. (2011). The youth justice system in England and Wales: reducing offending by young people : twenty-first report of 2010-11 : report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London, Stationery Office.
Great Britain. (2007). The government’s response to the House of Commons home affairs select committee report young black people and the criminal justice system. London, Home Office. http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/ybp-and-cjs.pdf.
Rob
