What are the aims of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. How did they come about and how effectively are they being met? Discuss

Authors Avatar

An aim can be defined as “to direct (one’s efforts); to intend”. This paper will examine how the publication of ‘Misspent Youth’ by the Audit Commission (AC 1996), brought about a radical overhaul of the Youth Justice System (YJS) in England and Wales, when it was met by the Home Offices’ (HO) White Paper, ‘No More Excuses’ (HO 1997). This essay will not only address what new aims were created by the White Paper, but also how effectively these aims are being met through both legislative, and non-legislative changes.

‘Misspent Youth’ outlined proposals to make the YJS more efficient. This was met by ‘No More Excuses’, which set the basis for the Government’s programme of reform for the YJS, to be taken forward by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (‘the 1998’ act). In the preface, the Home Secretary stated that the principle aim of the YJS was to prevent offending (this includes re-offending). This was met by ‘the 1998’ act which enforced it as a statutory aim. To meet this principle aim ‘the 1998’ act imposed a duty on all agencies and individuals working in the YJS to have regard to it, in addition to their other duties. To ensure this occurred, the duty was also enforced by non-statutory objectives, built on the proposals of the Youth Justice Task Force.

‘No more Excuses’ (HO 1997) proposed that to meet the statutory aim of preventing offending, the factors closely linked to juvenile crime should be tackled. The factors that put young people at risk of offending are well documented in research (see Graham and Bowling 1995) and include a troubled home life, poor attainment at school including truancy, and drug and alcohol misuse. To help the Government provided support for single parents and introduced policies to help children achieve at school. In addition the Government took action to tackle drug misuse with new initiatives aimed at young people. ‘The 1998’ act gave the police new powers to confiscate alcohol away from children in public, and introduced the drug treatment and testing order to help YO with drug problems. Ashford (2007) noted that from 1999 to 2007, grants made to develop youth crime prevention totalled over 100 million pounds and his report suggests that prevention programmes managed by Youth Offending Team(s) (Yot(s)) were effective. The ‘Youth Intervention Programme’ was noted to be successful in reducing arrest rates and the gravity of offending (Burrows 2003). However, The AC (2004) has recommended that more prevention would occur if schools, health services and other mainstream agencies take more responsibility for young people.

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. Ghate and Ramella’s study (2002) of 42 parenting projects was highly successful and results indicated a vast range of behavioural improvements as well as lowered reconviction rates. The AC (2004, p.80) discovered the use of parenting orders varied between Yots, and in many areas they were not used due to lack of resources. However the report noted this was to be amended in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, by introducing parenting contracts and parenting orders available with referral orders; and by providing additional funding. Reparation orders however make the offender take the responsibility. Examples of these orders include writing letters of apology, cleaning graffiti and repairing criminal damage. This measure also benefits victims who may be compensated for their loss and can ask offenders why they committed the offence.

Join now!

‘No more excuses’ (1997) also proposed the YJS should strive to improve awareness of the system and improve public confidence by reducing fear of crime. Hough and Roberts (2003) discovered that although youth crime has not increased in recent years, three out of four believed it had. The same research also found most people had not heard of Yots and nearly 90% over estimated how much of youth crime is violent. Furthermore, Bala and others (2002) discovered that most people are unaware that over 80% of custodial sentences result in reconviction within two years, and that community sentences are ...

This is a preview of the whole essay