As the New Labour government came into power in 1997, England and Wales saw the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The background to this Act was suggested in “their paper- Tackling Youth Crime, Reforming Youth Justice” (Fionda, 1999). Following the appointment of the Labour government, on June 17, 1997, a Youth Justice Task Force was issued by the Home Secretary, which being chaired by Lord Norman Warner provided the much needed recommendations for reform. Grouped with other reports such the Audit Commission’s Misspent Youth and Narey’s Home Office Report on youth, such an Act was to be expected (Fionda, 1999). The Act gained its Royal Assent on the 31st of July 1998 and was described as: “the biggest shake-up for 50 years in tackling crime” (Guardian, 1997). The then home secretary Jack Straw felt that an “excuse culture” had developed whereby the young people of today would get away with the crimes that they commit. He stated that: “For too long we have assumed they will grow out of their offending behaviour if left to themselves” (Munice, 1999; 148). The Act was to set out the propositions to emphasise the notion of punishment as well as establishing the “causes of crime” (Fionda, 1999). However, before some of the proposals in the Act are to be put into force there will be “pilot surveys” of some kind to see what effect they have on individuals (Munice, 1999). Chapter 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act sets out the Youth Justice policies which can be examined.
The extent and nature of youth crime in England and Wales has been established and the introduction and background of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, has been understood as the basis for New Labour’s policies on youth crime. Now these approaches of the governments before that of New Labour can be looked at as a comparison and as an idea of what the Labour government had to pick up from. The presumption of doli incapax (incapable of evil) which brought about controversy was based on children between the ages of 10-13 who were not allowed to be prosecuted unless there was serious evidence to suggest that their actions were performed with full knowledge and planning. Before New Labour entered into the government, legislation such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 which was inspired by the then Labour party, had the desire to protect the well-being of the child. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has the view regarding that with youths under the age of 18 their “best interests shall prevail” (Munice, 1999; 153). The proposal for the Act was the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be at 14 and so such a presumption would be unnecessary (Fionda, 1999). There was the suggestion that in the modern day the youth are much more mature and aware of their actions.
This was the past view; however, the New Labour government had other plans. They wanted to abolish this presumption and this is carried out under Section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. New Labour decided this path of action on the fact that it was on “the simplest course” (Fionda, 1999; 38). With this abolishment, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is now 10. This has caused much controversy as compared to the other European countries it is fairly low, for example Belgium’s minimum age is 18. This abolishment means that even younger people will have to be responsible for their actions. The New Labour government’s Home Secretary has stated that: “the ruling would be abolished in order to help convict young offenders who are ruining the lives of many communities” (Munice, 1999; 154).
The abolishment of such a doctrine shows that the Labour government are facing up to the truth that, young people do in fact know what they are doing when they commit crimes. The Home Office stated that the presumption: flies in the face of common sense” (Fionda, 1999; 38). It was also seen as hindering the process of prosecution, due to the deliberation involved. The views of Laws J. in C v DPP had said that the presumption should be abolished, because: it was perverse and contrary to common sense and did a serious disservice to the law” (Fionda, 1999; 38). The past government were seen as having a poor idea of what children are actually capable of. This led politicians to look back in hindsight and worry about how many youths were getting away with committing crimes.
However, some would say that such an abolishment was not protecting the welfare of the child, which was meant to be the “key principle” (Munice, 1999). As stated previously the UN and The Children’s Act 1989, disapproved of such action and saw it as ignoring the needs of the child. The opinion has also been held that in the spectrum of law, children should be treated much more leniently and in a different manner. There is such a difference in the views of the European countries as different ages have been introduced for the minimum age of conviction, Britain being the lowest. This has seen as being a concern as there is such uncertainty on the law that should be held (Munice, 1999).
In the late 1980’s, early 1990’s the “youth justice system” had turned rather corporate and managerially orientated. The presumed aim of achieving “justice” was overridden by aspects of administration and efficiency. A group of “community-based agencies” had looked at other options apart from custodial sentences to try and cut some of the costs down of the magistrate’s courts. The process known as “public sector managerialisation” had come into force whereby problems of crime were “managed” rather than “resolved” (Munice, 1999; 149). The Conservatives very much supported this idea that money could be saved through effective business management, crime being understood through “systematic co-ordination”. However when the Audit Commission brought out their report it was shown that this system was not an effective one. The public services e.g. courts were found to be accountable for £1bn of the legal costs of dealing with “young offenders” every year with about £660 million being spent by the police. The process can involve filling out a range of about 40 forms and 4 out of 5 cases have an average of four court appearances before a decision is made. This procedure can take up to 170 days (four months) to be achieved and the “court process costs” are around £2,500 for every young offender (Audit Commission, 1996).
The New Labour government felt that such a corporate strategy could still work, but with more refined principles and objectives. If the multi-agencies could be more focused on the types of people that commit these crimes and the way to stop them, then this would reduce some of the crime carried out, hence reducing court proceedings and sentences. This could therefore cut sown some of the costs of the legal system. One of the ways of dealing with the young offenders was an introduction of curfew orders. This was not a new system in the government as the 1991 Criminal Justice Act imposed curfews on youths aged 16 or over for periods of 2-12 hours every day for 6 months. What was different with the New Labour government was the desire for young offenders aged less than 10 years old to have this restriction imposed also. In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 under Section 14 (2) it states that “children of specified ages (under 10) being in a public place within a specified area; (a) during specified hours (between 9pm and 6am) and (b) otherwise under the effective control of a parent or a responsible person aged 18 or over”. This has been put into practice in three estates in Glasgow by Strathclyde police in 1997. When the trial had been completed, “more than 100 young people had been “rounded up” (Munice, 1999; 155).
The curfew orders were seen by some a good thing in order to create “a safer community by “nipping criminal and anti-social behaviour in the bud” and was also stated that “unsupervised young children gathered in public places at night can cause real alarm and misery to local communities” (Fionda, 1999;45). One of the targets of the New Labour government was to prevent young people from the traps of committing crime and so by using a curfew order, “intervention” could prevent this. Such schemes of curfew orders have been practiced in America first and the results there have been positive for example in Dallas crime has dropped by 42% since its introduction in 1993 ( Munice, 1999).
However, there are also negative aspects of such a scheme and it is unlikely to be preferred by everybody. Curfews in practice have been seen as being “difficult to enforce” and it has also been said that breach an individuals human rights by taking away their freedoms: “to select young people and criminalize them for doing what the rest of the population can feely do is doubly discriminatory” (Munice, 1999; 155).
This is also joined by the parenting order under Sections 8 and 9 of the Crime and Disorder Act whereby the court can impose a sanction on a young offender’s parent to “attend counselling or guidance sessions on dealing with their children on a weekly basis for 3 months” (Fionda, 1999; 46). The parents are by law expected to fulfil this duty and if in breach under Section 9 (7) they may be subject to a custodial sentence and their child may be taken away from them. There has also been the introduction of a child safety order which applies to any child under the age of 10 who is deemed to be a “risk of becoming involved in crime or is behaving in an anti-social manner” (Munice, 1999; 156). This comes under Section 11 of the Crime and Disorder Act whereby the child “receives appropriate care, protection and support and is subject to proper control; or preventing any repetition of the kind of behaviour”. These have been some of the ways in which the New Labour government have tried to control an even younger generation of young offenders, by incorporating their families, and the local agencies that are available for support in a more preventative manner. In the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, the idea of reparation orders began. This entailed the young offender to pay some debt to the “victim of the offence” and the “community at large” (Munice, 1999). There was also the introduction of action plan orders, whereby activities are provided to the young offender in order to curb some of the behaviour that they had been carrying out e.g. anger management courses.
The Act has now also changed the method of cautioning to reprimands and final warnings. A reprimand being less formal for a first time offence, only it will be recorded. If an offender has already received a reprimand, then it will be more serious and a final warning or more than likely a conviction will be made (Fionda, 1999). This was carried out in the hope that a more serious attitude to youth offences will be taken into consideration by those that commit the offences. New Labour wanted to have a tougher approach towards custody of young offenders. The detention and training order was brought in, whereby there could be “secure training orders for 12-14 year olds with the pre-existing detention in a young offender institution for 15-17 year olds” (Munice, 1999).
The Act is seen as criminalizing “inadequate parenting” which is viewed by the Labour government as being one of the major causes of crime in young people. Etzioni’ has stated that “the root cause of crime lies within the home and that it is in the domestic sphere that the shoring up of our moral foundations should begin” (Munice, 1999; 157). However, it has been said that by blaming the parents for their child’s behaviour and making them responsible, may make matters worse as children will find their families being pulled apart, in which case they may have to leave (Munice, 1999). Such an order is also seen as invading the privacy of family life. Finally with regard to detention orders and an increase in custodial sentences for young people there have been some views of concern. The Prime Minister’s wife Cherie Blair was speaking against the amount of youths in jail saying that it went against children’s human rights (The Observer, 2003). Martin Bright criticised the Home Secretary David Blunkett’s “get- tough” rules regarding young offenders. He stated that children are “being left to rot in prison” and the increase in suicides in prisons is a definite concern (The Observer, 2003).
What appears to be of central concern is keeping the youths of today out of trouble. However, there are such varied opinions on how to carry this out. The New Labour government chose to take a strict, dominant approach and make young offenders become responsible for their actions. They have had some grip on what the previous governments had tried to accomplish, but had shown no mercy. The abundance of agencies all trying to understand the causes of young offenders to behave in the way they do has been a regular occurrence. It seems that such causes have been established and recognised by the government and have been the background for the policies that they have introduced. Based on the figures presented it appears that youth crime seems to be decreasing and so it may be such policies are showing their selves to be effective. It has been said that the Act “now provides the police and the youth court with a formidable array of powers” (Munice, 1999; 169). The question lies in whether this power has a positive or negative effect on children. The Act has also been seen as a harsh approach whereby the rights of children have been removed and their welfare ignored. However, the government need to be seen trying to curb the possibility that youth crime may continue to be a problem to communities and society as a whole. The media often portray the youth in a very negative light, which causes the public to stereotype, a custom that the Labour government want to end. The Labour government must try to integrate both the help of the public services and the families of the young offenders, but try not to appear as the tyrants. There could perhaps be a stronger degree of clarity in the Act so that national and local agencies can work in a more efficient manner which was the objective of the government. If integration and clarity can be achieved then the intentions of the New Labour government on youth crime can be dealt with in a more effective manner.
Bibliography
Journal Articles
Fionda, J, (1999), “New Labour, Old Hat: Youth Justice and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998”, Criminal Law Review, January, pp.36-7.
Munice, J, (1999), Institutionalised Intolerance: Youth Justice and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, Critical Social Policy, vol. 19, no. 2, pp 147-175
Piper, C, (1999), The Crime and Disorder Act 1998: child and community “safety”, Modern Law Review, vol.62, no.3, pp 397-408
Internet sites
Primary Sources:
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts1998/19980037.htm
http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/briefings/nacro-2002030100-ycs.pdf
http://guardian.co.uk
