Search results

This paper seeks to consider the youth justice system from a custody perspective.

This paper presents the recent history of the secure estate and youth justice in England and Wales, arguing that the present system is far too large, complex and costly and contains perverse incentives to place vulnerable young people in low‐cost but dangerously inappropriate settings.

The paper argues that the present, labyrinthine arrangements, which are in large part, a product of political posturing and administrative and fiscal expediency, have produced a system that is too large and in which most institutional regimes are unresponsive to the needs of these children and, as a result, fail to achieve their rehabilitative objectives.

It is contended that if existing child care and criminal justice legislation were fully implemented, and policy and practice were aligned with international children's rights conventions, we would see a greater emphasis on prevention and diversion at the “front end” of the system and “regime change” at the “back end”.

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) was established in 1998 as a central part of the Labour government's radical programme of youth justice reform. Yet while it has had a central role in directing the culture, organisation and activities of youth justice in England and Wales, it is poorly understood. As its future hangs in the balance, this paper seeks to draw on a unique empirical study of the operation of the YJB to explore what it is, what it does and why it is so difficult to describe.

The research involved 18 months' ethnographic fieldwork. For one calendar year (2006‐2007), research focused on the internal operation of the YJB including observations of meetings, depth interviews and documentary analysis. A second strand of research explored the regional operation of the YJB. This involved observations of regional monitors and assessment processes and interviews and focus groups with Youth Offending Teams staff.

The research shows that the YJB is an inherently ambiguous organisation. This ambiguity has made it simultaneously highly insecure and extremely productive, enabling it to extend its influence and activities beyond those initially envisaged in New Labour's reforms. However, the difficulty in defining the YJB also suggests the full effect of its activities will only become clear once it has gone.

While there has been much academic interest in the YJB, this research is the only empirical study of it. It, therefore gives a unique insight into the organisation and culture of the English and Welsh youth justice system.

This paper aims to examine the policing of youth anti‐social behaviour and crime.

The paper considers the Independent Commission report, Time for a Fresh Start and argues that its analysis would be enhanced by a fuller consideration of the role of the police as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system. As such this represents something of a missed opportunity.

The paper contends that, like many other reviews of youth justice, and proposals for reform, Time for a Fresh Start says relatively little about policing. As gatekeepers and agenda‐setters for much of the criminal justice system, the police occupy a key position. This paper suggests that reform programmes must focus on the role the police play in regulating the flow of young people into the justice system and, in particular, argues in favour of a constructive reappraisal of the value of “diversion”.

Without considering the role the police play in regulating the flow of young people into the justice system, any programme of reform is incomplete. We need to rehabilitate the idea of “diversion” and to rescue it from the one‐sided picture that became dominant from the mid‐1990s onward.

This paper seeks to look at youth justice (YJ) personnel training and education and the recommendations about it made in Time for a Fresh Start.

The pedagogic tensions that currently shape YJ training are described – particularly those around the question of instructionalism vs education and what “specialist” means in the context of YJ.

The paper suggests that the authors of Time for a Fresh Start missed the opportunity to better serve the public and young people's interests by neither acknowledging the pedagogic tensions nor articulating what a “specialist” “YJ” professional training can mean in twenty‐first century England and Wales.

The paper highlights an urgent need for an open debate between academics, practitioners and policy makers about YJ pedagogy.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) was set at ten years old in 1963. Since then a deeper appreciation of children's rights and understanding of their unique capabilities and experiences has been gained. This paper seeks to examine the implications of these developments for our understanding of this MACR.

Research is reviewed that illuminates questions about children's culpability, their competence to participate in the criminal justice system (CJS) and the consequences of criminalising them at a young age. Recent understandings of how children's rights apply to the MACR are also summarised.

Developmental science and human rights perspectives are inconsistent with a MACR no younger than 12 years.

The paper is one of the first to extensively apply developmental science research to the MACR. The author finds that although a just and rehabilitative CJS may be achievable in the case of most adolescent defendants, this is an unrealistic goal for younger children who instead require a welfare‐based system that addresses underlying causes of antisocial behaviour, facilitates accountability and ensures child protection.

This paper seeks to argue that there are many failings in current responses to youth crime and antisocial behaviour in England and Wales, which means that the time is ripe for reform.

This paper summarises the analysis and recommendations of the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour, which in July 2010 published its report, Time for a Fresh Start, and a book, A New Response to Youth Crime, setting out the evidence on which the report was based. These are considered against a backdrop of failings of the current system and in the context of current cuts in public services.

The present system in England and Wales fails to resolve the tension between punishment and welfare in a coherent way. It is ineffective in preventing crime and reoffending, it targets the disadvantaged and it is incomprehensible to most young offenders. The Commission proposes that in future restorative justice should be the core of the youth justice system.

The paper argues that a reformed system would exert a stronger influence on young offenders, would be more satisfying to victims and would inspire greater confidence in the general public.

Widespread criticism of the youth justice system in England and Wales has resulted in calls for it to adopt a restorative paradigm. This paper seeks to review the historical development of youth justice in neighbouring Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The historical development of youth justice in Scotland and Northern Ireland is reviewed with a view to learning lessons from these two very different models, compared to the current model in England and Wales.

It is argued that those tasked with reforming the system in England and Wales must understand the underlying political, cultural and social contexts in which alternative models have developed and satisfactorily resolve the conflicting needs and rights of the offender versus those of the victim, community and wider public.

Transfer of policy and practice from other jurisdictions requires careful consideration of their political, cultural and social contexts but England and Wales may benefit greatly from adopting restorative practices similar to those in Northern Ireland. However, successful implementation will depend on political will and institutional infrastructure.

In 2010, “The Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour” published a major report. This paper critically assesses the report by placing it within a context of juvenile/youth justice policy reform extending over the last 50 years.

The paper is based upon national and international policy analysis and comparative research.

In recent years the persistent politicisation of youth crime and an obsession with “tough” responses to child offenders in England and Wales have produced one of the most problematic youth justice regimes in the Western world. Against this backdrop the report of the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour is designed to influence policy reform. By drawing on an international evidence base, this paper assesses the merits of the Commission's proposals and the extent to which they signify a “fresh start” or a “false dawn”.

The paper argues that international evidence, alongside the provisions of both global and pan‐European human rights standards, provides a compelling case for raising the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, for developing youth justice policy and practice in accordance with the principle of minimum necessary intervention and for abolishing prison service and private sector penal custody for children and young people.

Drawing upon current research in Northamptonshire, this article argues that the assumption, implicit in recent UK youth justice legislation, that formal criminal justice interventions with early‐stage young offenders will have positive deterrent and rehabilitative effects does not appear to be borne out in practice. It contends that the use of informal diversionary strategies with, low‐level, early‐stage, young offenders may, in fact, have a more positive impact in terms of re‐conviction rates, averting the escalation of ‘deviant careers’, reducing criminal victimisation and cost savings. The article concludes with a discussion of the political and administrative barriers to the implementation of such strategies in English youth justice.