A Reparation Order under (S67) can also be used to respond to John’s offending. The aim here is for John to face up to his crime and take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. For John this can include apologising to the victim and repairing any criminal damage. Reparation will be supervised and I feel it should last for 24 hours.
It may also be appropriate to give John a curfew (S37) PCSA 2000. A Curfew Order requires the young person to stay and remain in a particular place at a particular time; this is usually the address they reside in. If John is committing burglaries at night then it would be appropriate for him to have a curfew from 7pm to 7am. Requirements such as electronic monitoring can also be placed on curfew orders (S38). Because John is 15 years old the curfew cannot last for more than 3 months. A Curfew Order can also be made in conjunction with another order.
John may also be liable to pay a fine (S135) PCSA 2000. Due to John’s age the fine shall not exceed £1000. Alternatively the court may order Johns father to pay the fine (S137) PCSA.
A supervision Order (S71) CADA 1998 (with requirements can also be imposed). The purpose here will be to address the offending behaviour. Because John is 15 years old he can be put under the supervision of a social worker or probation officer for a period of time between 3months and 3years. This would be appropriate for John as it is looking into the reasons to why he offends. Once these are intensified he can work on how he will avoid re-offending. Requirements for John can include, rehabilitation and cognitive behaviour skills training. Supervision Orders may also impose participation in The Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP).
If the court finds Johns offending of a very serious nature then he may be sentenced to a Detention and training Order (S73) CDA. This order can be imposed on young offenders between the ages of 12 and 17. This sentence is only given where the court feels the offence is very serious, or if the offender has an offending history. This order greatly applies to John. The first half of the DTO will be served in detention and the second half in the community. This can last for a period of 4-12 months (Powers of Criminal (Sentencing) Act 2000 (S90).
Policies of working with young people include the child’s welfare. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 established that all courts should have great regard to the Childs welfare. The Childs welfare should be paramount. The UN Convention of Rights of the Child states that in legal proceedings best interests of the child should prevail.
National standards equal opportunities policy state that the youth justice system must be free of discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, age and disability and action must be taken to prevent discrimination.
The Humans Right Act 1998 also states various Rights which people are entitled to, examples include Article 6 –Right to a fair trial and Article 7- No punishment without law.
Over the years sociologists and criminologists have researched various explanations for criminal behaviour. According to Putwain and Sammons (2002) these theories can be grouped together as biologically oriented and psychologically oriented.
Biologically oriented – These are based around the idea that criminality is the effect of biological or genetic characteristics. Examples include Lombroso (1876) who initially suggested that criminals are ‘born and not ‘made’. Sheldon (1949) attempted to link criminal behaviour to bodily build or somatotype.
Psychologically oriented explanations for criminal behaviour include Sutherland’s (1939) differential association theory, where it is suggested that criminal behaviour is learned through exposure to criminal norms, for example peer group and family.
Social learning theory (SLT) is the behaviour theory that is most relevant to criminology. Bandura (1977) emphasised the importance of modelling and observing the attitudes and behaviours of others. It explains human behaviour in terms of continuous reciprocal interactions between behaviour, cognitive and environmental influences e.g. peer pressure and parent child interactions. SLT has also been applied to understanding aggression, which is also evident in John.
This has influenced disposals by therapeutic activities to change behaviour, learning new skills and training programmes such as anger management, good role modelling and what is unacceptable behaviour.
Rutter et al, (1998) also emphasized the importance of psychosocial features in explaining criminal behaviour. These features will be discussed below.
Poverty and social class was the first sociological variable ever looked at into possible causes of crime (Gullerray & Quetlet 1800). People who do not have good fortune, comfortable homes and who lack opportunities in education and unemployment are more likely to commit crimes than those who do. There is also a strong coloration between disadvantaged neighbourhoods and crime (Krivo & Patterson 1990). Recorded crime figures constantly show higher crime rates in inner cities and poor council estates (Bottoms and Wiles 1997 research)
A link between social class and known offending can be found in The Youth Lifestyle Survey 1998/99, where men in social class 1V and V are more likely to be serious or persistent offenders than others. (Refer to graph below)
(Findings from The Youth lifestyle survey 1998/99)
This has influenced disposals in the CJS such as Action Plan Orders, where education, social skills and training programmes are undertaken in order to change behaviour and encourage better life opportunities. This has also influenced rehabilitation, which is aimed to ameliorate the alleged effects of emotional or social deprivation and enable young offenders to make positive choices about their lives. Rehabilitation is concerned to remedy cognitive malfunction in the area of moral choice and eradicate dysfunctional social skills (Ross et al., 1984).
Broken homes and loss and separation have also been associated with criminal behaviour. John Bowlby’s (1969) attachment theory cites that a secure attachment is essential for development. Once the bond is disrupted (Johns mother passed away when he was 8) this results in an insecure attachment and an inability to exhibit empathy linked to the capacity for later criminal behaviour (Richardson et al, 1994). Evidence for broken homes can be found in The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, where children in single parent families committed more juvenile offences than those in two parent families.
This has influenced disposals such as Parenting Orders. Parenting Orders include educating in skills, effective monitoring of children’s behaviour, well-focused disciple, good social problem solving skills and prosocial fostering.
Parenting has also influenced Compensation Orders, where the parents take responsibility for their child and pay out damages on their behalf.
It has long been obvious that delinquent individuals tend to have delinquent friends and that many anti social activities are undertaken together with other people. Sutherland and Cressey (1955) argue that criminal behaviour is learnt through personal interactions within peer groups. If friends influence one another they become similar. This finding is also evident in the 2002 MORI youth survey where 44% of 1770 pupils offended due to peer pressure.
This may be applicable to John because he is committing burglaries with other people. John may also be part of a gang. Cairns & Cains (1994) suggest that individuals who join gangs are alienated youths and for them gangs provide the bond and love they lack in school (John has been excluded from school) and family (John does not have a bond or love from his mother).
Disposals that influences this explanation include curfews where John will be required to stay at home after a certain time away from his peer group, he may also be electronically tagged, therefore will be unable to participate in anti social behaviour.
Boredom is also a contributing factor of anti-social behaviour as evident in the
MORI report 2002. (61% Of 1770 pupils) admitted to behaving anti- socially due to boredom. This also links in with school exclusion. Hodgson and Webb’s (2005) research on 56 young people who had been excluded from school, 40 of them had committed offences.
This has influenced Supervision Orders where constructive activities are undertaken for example, attending a youth club to combat boredom, training and programmes to minimise the risk of offending behaviour, improving social skills and recognising unacceptable behaviours which operate in groups.
Explanations for criminal behaviour also include individual features (Rutter et al 1998)
Various studies have shown that youth with mental health problems have higher offending prevalence rates than those without (Elliott & Huizinga 1984). Anti-social acts seem to have their origin in abnormal mental processes such as distorted perceptions, faulty reasoning and disordered modulation of affect. (Marzuk 1996) This has influenced the disposal RLLA and DTO where children and young people are in secure accommodation on the grounds of welfare and risk to others and themselves.
John openly admits to drinking and taking drugs on regular basis. It may be that John is committing burglaries to ‘feed’ his drink and drugs habit.
“Regular users of drugs may steal in order to be able
to purchase their drugs”
(Chaiken & Chaiken 1991)
The case of drugs greatly influences the disposal Drug Treatment and Testing order, which is aimed at those who commit crimes to fund their drug habit. This order obliges the offender to undergo drug treatment.
Youth justice in the present century has evolved into a particularly complex state of affairs. It is aimed at punishing the offender whilst keeping their welfare paramount. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 established that all courts should have great regard to the child’s welfare.
Many offenders are looked upon as problems to be solved, rather than people with problems to solve. Having professionals such as social workers and YOT’s gives the individual the opportunity to focus on their situations and adapt to a better way of living rather than marginalizing them from the rest of society.
With all disposals an ASSET (young offender assessment profile) is undertaken. This aims to look at the young persons offending and identify a multitude of factors for example, education and mental health. The outcome from this will decide what work is necessary and appropriate in addressing the individuals offending behaviour. Family circumstances and diversity should also be taken into account to ensure anti-oppressive practice and anti-discriminatory practice.
An ASSET mental health-screening tool is also available. This is to ensure that youth with mental health problems are supported appropriately and are accessing the mental health services available to them. Local YOT’s have also set up mental health projects. Where there is evidence of mental health problems, an urgent assessment is undertaken by Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Specialist intervention includes, counselling and therapy to reduce the risk of re-offending.
With all disposals interpreting services are available for asylum seekers and others where there is a language barrier. Local YOT’s regularly fund interpreting services and young people who require them are encouraged to use them. In 2002 Oxford YOT established a specialist board working exclusively with asylum seekers and refugees.
However increased attention is needed on the growing number of youth with disabilities involved in the juvenile justice system (Burrell & Warboy 2000). Leone et al (2002) cited that when agencies make a commitment to collaborate and provide comprehensive services for youth with disabilities and their families, successful outcomes are the result.
Black and ethnic minority individuals continue to be disproportionately represented throughout the youth justice system. Launch of the Race Audit and Action Planning will enable local YOT’S to tackle discrimination where identified and promote equality of opportunity. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) also funds Mentoring Plus projects for ethnic minority, black and ‘hard to reach’ young people.
With all children a multi agency approach is essential to address the youths circumstances as well as effective family work. Professionals and families should have the ability to maintain good working relationships with the child’s best interests at heart. However the most important aspect is working together with the young person.
Helping young people who have been excluded from school can be difficult. Once a child has been excluded other schools are reluctant to take on the disruptive pupil, therefore they are left for their parents to deal with. By not dealing with these individuals it is as if the system is letting them down. Educational requirements should always be met by YOT’s and LEA’s should promote the re-integration of excluded children into school. (Audit commission 1996)
I feel the most appropriate way of working with John would be a non-custodial sentence. Greenwood et al (1996) cited that providing educational and other support services to youth and their families is a more effective approach than incarceration. I feel a Supervision order where a range of specified activities can be attached such as participation in the ISSP are more appropriate.
Justifications for my reasons are that various studies and research have found these disposals successful and effective in meeting young peoples needs. Supervision Orders offer a range of programmes such as cognitive skills, behaviour and skills training. This is evident in Ross et al, (1988) research on a cognitive skills training programme. He cites that when intervention is based around skills and behavioural training for around six months then a reduction in re-offending can be expected by 10 per cent. Children with learning difficulties and special needs have also benefited greatly from cognitive skills training.
Other activities through supervision orders, which can meet Johns, needs include anti-drug and substance misuse programmes such as methadone maintenance. This provides methadone to drug-dependent individuals as a substitute for heroin. This has been successful in reducing crime and drug consumption (Anglin 1990). Because John lives in an area of deprivation he will also benefit from the programmes that are attached to Supervision Orders such as rehabilitation, education and training to provide John with opportunities in society. Solution focused work, problem solving and group work.
“Group work programmes are recognised as an effective way of
addressing offending behaviour because it provides a context
for young people to challenge and learn from each other”
(Utting & Vennard 2000)
Structured supervision programmes combining training in moral reasoning, behaviour skills, problem solving, vocationally orientated psychotherapy have all been cited as successful and effective in meeting young peoples needs (McGuire 1995).
Supervision Orders can also include reparation. For John it could include repairing the harm done to an individual’s property or writing a letter of apology. Restorative justice has risen to prominence in recent years as “one of the significant developments in criminal justice and criminological practice and thinking” (Crawford & Newburn 2003:19)
The ISSP has also been cited effective in meeting young peoples needs. Moore (2004) In discussion with local YOT staff, examples were given on how the ‘tag’ had made it easier for young people to resist peer pressure and go out and commit further crimes. This may also work for John who is offending with other young people, as well as meeting his educational needs. The ISSP has been publicised by the YJB as a positive alternative to custody.
I feel prison is not as effective as community disposals in addressing the needs of young people. Racism and discrimination are also evident in the prison system. An article by Tania Kent In Nov 2000 highlights the murder of Zahid Mubarak whist in prison custody (YOI Feltham) is believed to be racially aggravated.
At the same institute full time education was only available to 90 out of 800 young offenders. Prisoners spent too long in their cells and the average amount of activity time was 15 hours a week. Health care unit officials also cited that 18 of 23 people had serious health problems and should be in hospital not prison. The number of suicides has also risen incredibly. In 1999 ninety-one inmates killed themselves, 62% of these were on remand awaiting trail. All these are prime examples of how inadequate and insufficient custody sentences are in addressing children and young peoples needs.
In conclusion when working with children and young people it is not appropriate to generalise and make stereotypical assumptions about the nature of the offending and about the individual. It is unacceptable to exclude and marginalize young people.
