Throughout the class of the Youth Justice System in the British Isles, there have been incidences when it seemed that the rehabilitation of the wrongdoer was n’t of importance but instead their penalty. It has taken a really long clip for the YJ system to make its current degree today, and this has taken approximately 200 old ages to set up. This has taken so long because there ne’er used to be a Justice System that dealt specifically with immature wrongdoers. In this assignment I am traveling to be looking at the steps of covering with immature wrongdoers that were used in the yesteryear and how these have evolved over clip. I am besides traveling to be looking at different Acts of the Apostless of statute law that were passed to assist establish the YJ system whilst besides looking at the systems in other states.
The current Youth Justice Board came into being after the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was passed with the primary purpose of the board being to ‘prevent piquing and re-offending of immature people. ‘ ( Home Office 2009 ) . As mentioned above the YJB did non be before the CDA 1998 so I am traveling to look at the history that led to its birth. In the 1800 ‘s the differentiation between grownups and kids was non-existent when it came to punishment for offenses committed. Forms of penalty included being outlawed or transported aboard e.g. to Australia, public humiliation by being whipped or placed in stocks for everyone to see, and in some instances hanging was used.
As a consequence of this people spoke out against this as they believed this was excessively terrible for kids. Reformers such as Mary Carpenter advocated for instruction instead than prison, and instruction became free and compulsory for those aged 16 and at a lower place. This introduced the conflict between public assistance and justness as Carpenter believed that ‘treatment should be founded on the love of the kid ‘
The 1854 Youthful Offenders Act was the first jurisprudence that distinguished kids from grownups. This meant that kids who committed offenses were no longer sent to prison but instead to reformatory schools as Carpenter, highlighted the demand for better conditions for kids. At these schools the kids were given shelter, nutrient and basic preparation for accomplishments e.g. seeding. Although the purpose of these schools appeared to hold the best involvements of the kid, kids were beaten to implement authorization ‘Reformatory Schools were set up for wrongdoers under 16 old ages old. These were really tough topographic points, with stiff subject enforced by frequent whippings. ‘ ( The National Archives 2010: Online ) . Sending kids to these schools finally excluded them from society and from their friends and household kids were acquiring. Carpenter believed that is was the miss-management of low moral conditions of the parents instead than poorness that resulted in juvenile offense, hence why some might see this schools as taking away the parental duty of those seen as ‘unfit ‘ parents.
Industrial Schools were set up to assist vulnerable kids and those who posed the highest or greatest hazard of piquing. The 1857 Industrial Schools Act introduced better proviso for kids in countries of attention and instruction. This was basically of import because it helped supply for kids who were impoverished and aimless. ‘The clear differentiation between Industrial Schools and Reformatories was that the kids sent to Industrial schools were impoverished and those sent to Reformatories were juvenile wrongdoers. ‘ ( Hidden Lives 2010: Online ) .
However it is sad to observe that some kids died in these schools as a consequence of the manual labor that they did and that Industrial schools did n’t waver to do kids make hard work if it was profitable for the administration.
The turning public concern about adolescence and the nexus with juvenile offense paved manner for the alterations in statute law in respects to the legal place of immature people. In 1907 the Probation Service was introduced and a twelvemonth subsequently the 1908 Prevention of Crime Act established Juvenile Courts and Borstal Institutions. This Act besides gave local governments the powers to maintain hapless kids out of workhouses. Borstals were now viewed as the equivalent of prison, created entirely for immature wrongdoers.
‘The primary purpose underpinning this statute law was that juveniles were less responsible than grownups for their actions and should non be capable to the full stateliness of the jurisprudence ‘ ( Muncie 2002 )
Although this piece of statute law eventually distinguished a kid from an grownup it showed that the job of juvenile delinquents was likely to increase in the hereafter.
However in borstals, the length of the sentence was n’t passed in respects to the gravitation of the offense but instead was ‘fixed by statute law, two old ages as lower limit and three old ages as upper limit ‘ ( Encyclopaedia 2009: Online ) It is apparent that at this minute in the history of the young person justness system justness was deemed more of import than public assistance. However the Criminal Justice Act 1982 wholly abolished the borstal system and introduced Youth Custody centres The 1933 Children & A ; Young Persons Act began to look at ways of presenting more public assistance in the manner that immature wrongdoers were dealt with. The debut of societal workers who worked closely with wrongdoers helped to set up what kids ‘s demands were and the grounds why they offend. Section 44 of the act stated that ‘proper stairss should be taken to take the wrongdoer from unwanted milieus and for procuring that proper proviso is made for instruction and preparation ‘ ( Muncie 2002 ) . Shortly after the Act was passed detainment Centres were introduced and irrespective of the evident public assistance focal point that the act had brought, there was an increased likeliness of prosecution. With WWII nearing youth piquing began to lift as resources were consuming and the rationing of nutrient and basic necessities did n’t supply for peoples their demands. This could be in the signifier of choice pocketing, stealing in packs or interrupting into people places.
The 1948 Criminal Justice Act which abolished Corporal penalty. The act introduced the construct of imprisonment depending on the badness of the offense and whether or non the wrongdoer had a old felon record. Around this clip moral terror began to take a clasp of the state as people began sing immature people as delinquents doing stigma and negative stereo-typing of kids and immature people.
The 1969 Children and Young Persons Act introduced two cardinal constructs when working with immature wrongdoers, these being control and attention. The importance of the public assistance of the kid was truly taken into consideration and the legal system began to see both justness and public assistance when condemning a kid. This act besides entrusted local governments to work with immature wrongdoers in a dignified mode e.g. Chapter 54 of the act provinces, ‘Where a individual is remanded to local authorization adjustment and a security demand is imposed in regard of him ‘ ( OPSI 2010 ) .
A alteration in authorities from Labour to the Conservative Party in the 70 ‘s brought about alteration in the manner that the authorities intended to cover with young person offense. When Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979 she called for a return to ‘Victorian values in order to re- set up a sense of subject, decency, morality and duty while change by reversaling the tide of household decomposition ‘ . ( Dennis 1993 ) . The Conservative authorities was puting the docket around covering with jurisprudence and order, public assistance and immorality. In the yesteryear, duty was being taken off from parents e.g. during the constitution of reform school schools were the kids of ‘unfit ‘ parents were being taken off. However Thatcher intended to travel societal duty back to the person and morality back to the household ( Brake & A ; Hale 1992 ) . Thatcher wanted accent on cautiousnesss instead than major intercession from the authorities when covering with households of juvenile wrongdoers.
The 1933 Children ‘s Act established that tribunals should hold a ‘primary respect to the public assistance of the kid ‘ ( Muncie 2002 ) , and this position was strengthened by the 1989 Children ‘s Act judicial admission that a kid ‘s public assistance should be paramount. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced a new sentence, curfew orders for wrongdoers aged 16 and over. ‘These orders required an wrongdoer to remain at specific topographic point for specified periods of between 2 and 12 hours per twenty-four hours for up to six months ‘ . ( Muncie 2002 ) In 1993 the two high profile slayings of Jamie Bulger aged merely 2 and Stephen Lawrence aged 18 caused great argument. The age of condemnable duty was reduced from 10 to 8 as the liquidators of Bulger, Robert Thompson and John Venables were 10 old ages old. An enquiry into the decease of Stephen Lawrence showed his slaying was racially motivated and that the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan constabularies who handled the instance were institutionally racist, conveying about large alterations in the legal system of Britain.
The Misspent Youth ( Audit Commission 1996 ) study found that the Youth Justice System was inefficient and non be effectual. It besides highlighted how slow the tribunal processs were. Furthermore it showed how really small was being done to forestall piquing and re-offending, and that authorities bureaus were non working together, and to eliminate this job suggestions were made that the cardinal authorities should be more involved. This shows a direct contrast with the policies that were introduced by Margaret Thatcher, ‘less intercession from the authorities and more duty passed on to households ‘ ( Brake & A ; Hale 1992 ) .
The Crime & A ; Disorder Act 1998 introduced the current Youth Justice Board with the primary purpose of all intercessions in Youth Justice being to forestall piquing and re-offending by kids and Young People ( CDA 1998 ) . Section 39 of the Act introduced Youth Offending Teams, normally referred to as ( YOT ‘s ) which by jurisprudence had to hold a probation officer, wellness worker, lodging officer and societal worker. In making this the authorities was seeking to promote professional organic structures to get down working together and to portion information about wrongdoers. This was outlined by Section 115 ‘which established the power to unwrap information between offense and upset spouses, so long as such revelation is necessary or expedient for the intents of the Act ‘ i.e. to forestall and cut down offense and increase community safety ) ( Copeland 2006 ) The Crime And Disorder Act besides introduced Rearing Orders, ASBO ‘s and Sex wrongdoers Orders. The Act besides set out six aims that are referred to as the National Standards of the YJB.
The 1st aim is the fleet disposal of justness which requires all bureaus within the YJB to work as fast and every bit expeditiously as possible, this besides applies to the tribunals that are required to cover with instances quickly. The 2nd aim is to demo immature people the effects of their actions and seeking to assist them to hold a sense of duty, which would hopefully deter them from go oning to pique.
The 3rd aim is all about intervention- seeking to set up the grounds why a kid or immature individual offends. This is established by looking at the three spheres of hazard, ‘risk of serious injury, hazard of re-offending and exposure to the wrongdoer ( YJB 2010 ) To assist counter these hazard factors, there are protective factors that have to be put in topographic point, which include ‘social bonding with the household and or friends, chances, accomplishments and acknowledgment ( pg 10 Stephenson 2007 ) Aid is so provided to the immature individual based on the demands that have been identified.
The 4th nonsubjective expressions at covering the penalty appropriate to the offense. It is besides suggested that the relentless wrongdoers should hence have tougher sentences to cut down the likeliness of them re-offending.
The 5th aim is about reparation to the victim, whether it is an single individual or the community, which besides gives the wronged parties that opportunity to be involved in Youth Justice. Wrongdoers are given an chance to apologize to their victims and the victim under supervising has the right to interact with the wrongdoer to do them see the consequences of their offending behavior.
The 6th nonsubjective focal points on re-establishing the duties of parents in respects to the behavior of their kids as hapless parenting is a important hazard factor that could ensue in a kid piquing. Help is given to parents that need it under the commissariats in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
The YJB has many administrations within it that help to run into its purposes and aims. These administrations are overseen by the YJB to do certain that the primary purpose of cut downing piquing and reoffending by kids and immature people is met. The Home Office sponsors the YJB, and appoints a panel of 12 members who so give advice on affairs about young person offense. The panel so delegates duty to regional squads ; YOT ‘s with judicial admission that they should work with five statutory spouse ‘s e.g. the constabulary, Local governments, wellness governments etc. There are presently 155 YOT ‘s that screen England and Wales and each squad has a regional director that they are accountable to.
Each regional director has the duty of supervising the work that is carried out by the YOT ‘s of their several part. The director besides has the duty of reexamining countries that are n’t executing to the criterion required by Youth Justice National Standards, and describing back to the YJB. Some of the functions expected of a YOT include fixing pre-sentence studies, provide mentoring programmes, and provide necessary legal advice to an wrongdoer in respects to the aid they can acquire from the YOT during tribunal processs.
Apart from the demand of a YOT working with the five statutory organic structures, some bureaus voluntarily assist them in their work. These include the Connexions Service, Princes Trust, and Education Welfare Services. The YJB yearly inspects the public presentation of all YOT ‘s by reexamining the ASSET profile instances utilizing the national criterions aims on the YJB. Praise is given were due and recommendations are made that have to be achieved by the undermentioned twelvemonth. The intent of the review is to promote effectual and efficient pattern within the field of Youth Justice. The tool, ‘The Scaled Approach involves ‘tailoring the strength of intercession to the appraisal of hazard ‘ ( YJB 2009 ) . It is intended to enable youth workers to ‘make better usage of their clip and resources through the strategic and consistent use of Asset Risk appraisal tonss. ‘ ( YJB Handbook 2010 ) An illustration of the elements of effectual pattern includes, Mental Health Services, Substance Misuse, Parenting and Restorative Justice ‘ .
The manner that states deal with immature wrongdoers is ever different. Some steps used with immature wrongdoers could be renewing and justness focused while others could be rather punitory. Crime tolerance varies with each state and I am traveling to be looking at the different ways that other states deal with their immature wrongdoers and comparing this with what is done in England and Wales. Our closest neighbor Scotland has their age of condemnable duty raised from 10 to 12. Most mainland European states have their age of condemnable duty higher than England and Wales age of 10 as they set their ages between 14, 15, and 16 or, in some instances, at 18. To call a few, the age of condemnable duty in Japan, Belgium and Spain is 16, foregrounding the point that immature people are dealt with utilizing non-punitive normally welfare based steps as penalty for offenses. There are provinces in American that have duty every bit low as 6, which applies to North Carolina while the age of merely 7 applies to other provinces such as Massachusetts and New York which shows that these among other provinces have really punitory Torahs.
In Belgium there is a saloon that has the exclusive intent of prosecuting kids under the age of 16, and kids are dealt with by public assistance services. In England & A ; Wales, immature wrongdoers are dealt with by the YJS, while integrating renewing justness. The CDA 1998 replaced the usage of constabularies admonishing with usage of concluding warnings and rebukes. In France immature people who commit condemnable offenses would be capable to steps of protection, supervising and instruction, with condemnable countenances being used as a last resort. England has introduced a reparation system which allows the victim of an onslaught to hold direct or indirect contact with an wrongdoer to assist them acquire closing about the onslaught against them. This system is besides used in Finland but named mediation. This is believed to assist immature people to take duty for their actions and wrongdoers can seek and do damagess by apologizing in individual in the presence of a panel or by signifier of a missive. The Criminal Evidence Act 1999 introduced referral orders and young person piquing panels with referral orders being a standard compulsory sentence imposed on about all wrongdoers. The Youth Justice System has targeted wrongdoers and non wrongdoers by utilizing preventive steps to seek and cut down offending.
The publication of the Every Child Matters 2004 and the updated Young person Matters ( DfES 2005 ) aims has helped to do the young person piquing service in England and Wales more public assistance based. ‘These policies are designed to take full history of the positions of immature people ‘ ( pg 55 YJB Handbook ) . The purposes of ECM being to be healthy, enjoy and achieve, remain safe achieve economic well being and do a positive part shows that the Government has realised that we should, ‘build services around kids and immature people so that we can maximise chances and minimise hazard ‘ ( DfES 2004 ) . Recent alterations that have been brought by the Criminal Justice & A ; Immigration Act 2008 include the debut of Youth Rehabilitation Orders with the focal point being on single hazard and demands. The purpose is to supply equal intercession harmonizing to the degree of hazard posed by a individual or immature kid.
The Scaled Approach mentioned above is aimed to do a alteration in the manner that YOT ‘s pattern and is intended to work with the Rehabilitation Order. It is just to reason so that intercession is more effectual when its strength is based on the appraisal of a immature individual ‘s likeliness to pique. I believe that the current Youth offending service is making rather good and that if steps like those above are continued to be introduced the service can go on to better.