Evolution of Juvenile Justice Models in England and Wales

Introduction

Juvenile justice in England and Wales has been at the centre of government debate over the years. Developments in the political, social and even economical situations have had great influence on the juvenile justice system. This piece of report attempts to look at some of the forces behind the application of different models in criminal justice in the UK since 1908. This essay is going to discuss relevant service provision models for young people and children with mentioning theoretical rationale associated with these models. In addition to this, the essay will also represent critical discussion on contemporary youth justice policy using evidence-based information.

General overview

The debate on the trial and sentencing of children and young people for criminal offences is moribund (Baker et al,2005). Under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), it is considered a breach of fundamental rights under article 2(right to life) Article 6(fair trial) and Article 8(private and family life). (ECHR

While it comes to make the comprehensive discussion on youth justice and juvenile justice system, it is important to understand social and political situation that is involved in developing these two-separate justice systems in England. Evidence-based report has suggested that, although in many countries the youth and child justice system are taken up in the similar course, in case of England and Wales there is separate system of juvenile justice (Parsloe, 2017). Many evidences have proved that development of separate separation of Juvenile justice system in England and Wales is considered as aftermath of principles of segregation of adults from juvenile offenders. As mentioned by Kirk (2017), before 1908 the perception that had been developed in society is that it is necessary to separate the overall provision as well as the entire justice system for a child and young offenders as there are huge differences in psychology, maturity and understanding of these two category of individuals. during the period of 1898, the political system in UK as well as in other countries also felt the importance of developing of two separate justice system for children and adults’ offenders. The political and legal reason behind the decision of separate justice system in England was that same provisions, policies and legal principles cannot be applied on both children and adult offenders as the differences of their mental, physical and emotional condition. As mentioned by Parsloe (2017), the Juvenile Court in England and Wales took the impetus from the revolutionary political move taken by the Norway government by establishing Juvenile Welfare Board in 1898. The overall idea of having two different justice system was first enacted by America (US) and then after 1898, it was spread across many counties in eth world including UK. In England the Children Court has been established during 1908, under Children Act 1908, which deals with setting principles as well as for child offenders and ensured their positive transformation and protection from any kind of violence and harm.

Age of Criminal Responsibility or ACR is defined as the minimum age at which a child can be legally pushed or prosecuted under the law of juvenile offence (Watkins et al. 2016). Based on the principles set by of UN Committee on the Rights of Child, the value of ACR changes in different places of UK, such as in England and Wales it is 10 years and in Scotland the ACR is 8 years. Based on Section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, no child under the age of ten is considered guilty of an offence (Edith,2013). In Scotland the boils have been passed to raise the ACR from 8 years to 12 years.

Furthermore, in the criminal justice system in England and Wales (Children and Young People), a child is defined as a person under the age of 14, while a young person is one who has attained the age of 14 but is under the age of 18(Edith,2013).

More generally, the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004 defines a child as; any person who has not attained the age of eighteen. He objective of the youth justice system is in line with Section 37(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that was enacted purposely to prevent offending by Children and Young persons.

While discussing ACR, it is also important to understand the factors that are associated with determining ACR in different places on UK by the policymakers. the neuroscience, criminology and psychology have proved that proved that the overall behaviour and activity of any individual are highly influenced by the overall social, demographic, economic, cultural situation with which the individual deals (Mir, 2017). The determination of ACR in different places in UK is based on their social, economic, demographic, educational and cultural factors on children and adults. For example, there are many children as well as young people in Scotland who are vulnerable to severe social violence such as discrimination, bias and social isolation which makes them exposed towards the criminal offences. In this context Parsloe (2017) mentioned that evidence-based report has suggested that children offenders must have past history of some negative incidents of events such as poor parental and social support, social isolation and brutal approaches from their neighbours. On the other hand, in Scotland the number of social, political and demographic violence is huger than in England and Wales, that enhance the chances of children to expose to et criminal offences at very minimum age. this is why the ACR is determined to be 8 years here. On the contrary Kirk (2017) argued that, the determination of ACR sometimes does not highlight the actual scenario of social and political violence on children that enhances their chances to be criminal offenders. For example, although in England and Wales, the value of ACR is higher than Scotland, there are many rural and semi-urban areas in England , where children are highly vulnerable to social isolation, political violence, poor education support and lack of communication, which enhance their chances of developing criminal as well as negative behaviour at very early age, even sometimes before the age 10.

To understand the youth justice system more comprehensively, it is necessary to analyse the different theoretical models that make up the system using the findings of Dignan (2006). He classified youth justice into five categories as follows:

The welfare model: The welfare model is very positive in outlook. It is based on the premise that offences committed by young people are triggered by environmental and social factors for which the young offender cannot individually be held liable. The main objective of the youth justice system is to provide suitable assistance to offenders rather than punishment. Children and young persons who are vulnerable and in trouble are seen to need protection from the world around them. As a result, the needs and best interest of the young person become paramount instead of the offence they have committed. (Cavadino and Dignan,2006) Some contemporary institutional arrangements can be attributed to the welfare model. For example, there are separate welfare tribunals for young offenders as an alternative to the regular criminal courts in which the state assumes the role and responsibility of the parent of vulnerable children and those in trouble.

The welfare approach uses the same set of tribunals when dealing with children who are in trouble with the law and those in need of care and protection. A notable feature of the welfare approach is that the tribunal jurisdiction is not confined only to conventional criminal offences but also considers behavioural offences such as; sexual offences and truancy (Cavadino and Dignan,2006). It can, therefore, be argued that as a consequence, the welfare approach does not wait for an offence to be committed before intervening in the life of a young person, also,it does not require any formal legal relevance to proof that an offence has been committed,thirdly, the welfare approach makes use of experts such as; social workers, psychiatrist,psychologist who either make decisions in their own right or assist the judges through reporting and or advice(Youth justice board,2000)

The justice model: In contrast to the welfare model, the justice model is based on the premise that young people are to a certain limitation endowed with a free will (Dignan,2006).Therefore, they are presumed to assume responsibility for their actions. Inevitably, young people are held accountable in law for any offence they commit. This model therefore lays its primary focus on the deeds of a young person rather than on the young person s need as in the welfare approach.

Just as in the adult criminal justice system, the justice model focuses on determining if the suspect is guilty or innocent. If guilty, young offenders are assessed to determine their degree of culpability for which they are liable. Punishment is apportioned based on the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s culpability.

This model is highly engaged in the administration of punishment which inevitably leads to loss of freedom and liberty by the young offender. As a result, there are lots of due processes involved aimed at legally challenging the punitive power of the government. Unlike the welfare approach, the justice model creates a modified junior criminal court instead of the socialized welfare tribunals seen in the welfare model

In the justice model, young offenders need to be protected from mixing with adult offenders. To redress this situation, juvenile court proceedings are held at different times or at different buildings from the older offender’s court proceedings. In most cases, the public and the media are refrained from having access to these proceedings.

Another method in dealing with the proceedings in the justice model is that the two strands are often separated between young offenders and those in need of care and safeguarding. In most cases, this is done by carrying out the proceedings using two separate institutions, one dealing with young people who are in trouble with the law and the other dealing with young people who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect.

A further element of the justice model relates to the associated procedural safeguarding outcome. Usually this may include; the right to be given advance notification about the specific charges a young person is accused of, the right to legal aid or representation-usually financed through public funds, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, the right for witnesses to be cross examined since the young person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

However, since the justice model is punishable in outlook the sentencing in the youth justice model is like that of the adult criminal court. In the welfare model, penalties are often open-ended, indeterminate and individualized to suit the young person's welfare, but in the justice model, there is a high need for consistent and finite penalties that are proportionate in nature. Dig deeper into Criminal justice process in providing justice with our selection of articles.

The minimum intervention model: The minimum intervention model is based on the premise that every systemic process geared towards young offenders causes potential harm. Criminal proceedings are labelling and stigmatizing to young offenders. Young offenders will tend to reoffend in the future because the offence makes it difficult for them to engage in lawful activities, since most cases they become unemployable. Young offenders according to this model are at risk of participating in illegal activities which they might have learned from being confined in custodial institution where there are other hardened criminals. Therefore, this model stipulates that official responses to offence committed by young people only help to fuel and promote reoffending by young people instead of preventing them. The minimum intervention model has enabled the state to consider elements such as; minimizing the use of custodial institutions, making maximum use of community based alternatives to custody, avoid prosecution if possible and encourage use of police cautions, prevent netwidening,encourage civil proceedings and so on. The minimum intervention model is very similar to the welfare model than with the justice model, as it applies more to welfare interventions.

The restorative justice model: The restorative justice model is very radical in nature with a different view about the issue of crime itself. It raises questions on the relationship between the; victims, offenders, the state and the most essential procedures for dealing with crime. While the justice model considered crime as an offence against the state, this model(restorative model)by and large focus on the harm suffered by the victim that is being neglected by policy makers under the justice model.Restortaive justice model places the responsibilities for dealing with crimes and offenders on the government through nominated agencies working in the public interest .By nature, the restorative justice model places emphasis on bringing together all parties affected by specific offence. The offender, the victim and their communities are required to have a say in the final decision and resolve. This implies a more focus on the interest of the parties than on the public. The restorative justice model seeks to restore and repair the psychological, physical and emotional harm that is experienced by the victim, which is different from the traditional offender focus method of; deterrence, retribution rehabilitation and even punishment (the justice model). According to Mirsky(2003), restorative interventions have become a focus area of importance in education, social services, youth justice, domestic violence and mental health.Furthermore,restorative justice is considered the most accountable and cost effective way of dealing with crime(Shaw and Jane,1999).It is an impartial way of dealing with the welfare of young people and criminal behaviour-a contemporary approach in managing justice(Graef,2000).Restorative justice reduces the tension between justice and welfare with a new approach to youth justice(Gelsthorpe and Morris,2002)

In dealing with an offender, the restorative justice model seeks accountability from the offender to those that have been harm by an offence, but with a rapid integration of the offender back to the community. Furthermore, the restorative justice model seeks to repair the social relationship and empower the community and civil society. The South African Government for example applied this model through the Truth and reconciliation Commission to bring justice to victims of the Apartheid Era.

The neo correctionalist model: This model has more similarities with the justice model, both are punishment oriented in outlook. However, the justice model and the neo correctionalist model differ when it comes to the right of the offender. The justice model sees an offender as one entitled to some degree of rights and some form of protection from excessive punishment by the state, the neo correctionalist model on the other hand radically emphasized on the responsibilities that young offenders and to an extend their parents owe to the victim, the public, the community and even the state.

Furthermore, while the justice model attempts to reduce the incident of crime and advocate for a just punishment to the young offender, the neo correctionalist model focuses on using the youth justice system to drastically control crime. The neo correctionalist model makes prevention of offending by young people as its primary objective while all other objectives are secondary. This model favours restoration and reparation to the victim of an offence only on condition that it contributes to the reduction of the rate of reoffending. One of the major objectives of the neo correction list model is to improve the efficiency of the youth justice system by supporting those activities that are tailored towards young offenders for crime reduction.

The neo correctionalist model to some extends has been found to have some similarities with the welfare model than with the justice model. This similarity is observed trough the kind of behaviour that it attempts to prevent. Like the welfare model, the neo correctionalist model sought to prevent not only criminal behaviours but also pre delinquency actions such as truancy and certain anti-social behaviour caused by youthful exuberance.

Even though crime and youth violence are decreasing generally, it is still observed that children from impoverished backgrounds, black and ethnic minority and also young Muslim children tend to be more involved with the justice system (Pitts and Hope,1997).Areas in acute social deprivation continue to witness more crimes in England and Wales(Pitts,2008).Most often, the offenders and the victims tend to be children and young people(Palmers and Pitts,2006)

Risk assessment; risk assessment and management in youth justice is a major feature in government policy in England and Wales, it has been at the central part of government policy. Since the early part of 2000,all young people and offenders under the youth justice system have been placed or subjected to a standardized, structured risk assessment with the use of a professionally designed questionnaire known as “Asset”(Youth Justice Board,2000).The Asset measures 12 dynamic factors that can change over time such as; living arrangement, relationships and substance abuse and four static factors which do not change over time such as; age at first conviction, and number of previous convictions’ results are used in developing intervention plans. Furthermore,there has been a variety of risk factors prevention paradigm(RFPP) aimed at identifying so called risk factors and risky individuals(Hawkins and Catalano,1992).Farrington (2007) reiterated that the risk factors prevention paradigm facilitates the identification of risk factors for offending and implement prevention methods to counteract them. Sampson and Laub (2005) argue that young people s exposure to psychosocial domains such as; individuals, family, school, neighbourhood, early childhood and adolescence, can predict and even determine later offending by young people. On their part, Case and Haines (2009) have heavily criticise the risk factor research for its oversimplification of the range of risk factors and the failure to sufficiently account for the role of protective factors in helping young people refrain from crime.

Some early prevention and intervention services provided by the Youth Offending Teams to curb youth offending and reoffending are as follows;

Youth Inclusion Programs;

These are programs designed since 2008 for young people aged 8 to 17 years assessed to be at risk of offending or anti-social behaviour. There are 110 Youth Inclusion Programs operating in the most deprived and high crime communities across England and Wales. Young people placed on this program are identified by various agencies working together with such as; police, schools, local education authorities, social services and the Youth Offending Teams. The main aim of this program is to reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour.

Youth Inclusion support panel; created by the government to curb anti-social behaviour and offending by young people age between 8 to 13 years considered to be exposed to risk of offending. The panel helps the Youth Offending Teams across England and Wales to design programs aimed at identifying and reducing the possibility of Young people committing an offence. The panel is made up of representatives from different organizations such as; health and social services, police and schools. This panel ensures that at the earliest opportunities children and their families can have access to public services.

Parenting; poor parenting has been found to be one of the risk factors associated with young people breaking the law. Parenting programs have been designed tailored at improving the skills of parents in dealing with their children’s behaviour which put them at risk of offending. Parents are compelled to cooperate with local Youth Offending Teams to prevent children from offending or reoffending.

Safer school partnership: these are programs tailored to address significant behaviour’s and crime related issues around school premises. It was launched in 2002 but went effective as a policy in March 2006.Partner schools have been allocated police officers on their premises to; curb victimization, anti-social behaviour’s and criminal activities within the school’s environment.

Mentoring; this is done by bringing together a volunteer and a young person identified as at risk of offending. The role of the volunteer is to motivate and support the young person. The relationship is built on trust, commitment, confidentiality and equality. Mentoring helps the young person to identify and achieve social, educational and vocational goals that put at bay those factors exposing them to the risk of offending.

Early intervention services have been heavily criticized for their shortcomings in preventing reoffending by young persons.

Firstly there have been very limited studies to determine whether young people s risk and needs in relation to re-offending is affected by early intervention -planning and delivery(Baker et al,2005).As suggested by Sutherland(2009), the vast majority of intervention plans rarely matches with the risk and needs identified using Asset.

Furthermore, it has been revealed that many of the assessed risks do not essentially give guidance to identify areas for which interventions are undertaken or planned to be undertaken(Sutherland,2009).Assessment and planning are bound to constantly be mismatched because of the poor quality of assessment that is hindered by; constraint in resources,time,poor practices and some aspects in the life of the young person such as environment or neighbourhood(Baker et al,2011)

A recently published investigation by the Ministry Of Justice found that there is a variation between identified needs in assessments and those addressed in the sentence plan inevitably suggesting a prompt need for improvement(Cattell et al,2013).Most often,assements are thorough but rarely lead to clear planning and delivery of the proper intervention with the right person(Young person), in the right way and at the right time(Gyateng et al,2013)

Conclusion: This piece of work was designed to determine the political and social forces that led to the establishment of separate systems in the juvenile justice system in England and Wales since 1908.A brief explanation of the historical development of the juvenile justice system was made. An analysis of the different models of youth justice systems was also attempted with an examination of some of their differences and similarities. Some youth justice policies were further examined with a brief review of risk factors and early intervention strategies that underpins policy development. Findings revealed that the juvenile justice system in England and Wales has over the years been formulated as a result of political and social changes. Though youth crimes seem to be falling, there is a lot of reviews that still need to be done to prevent the wave of youth crimes and violence, especially in deprived communities.

References

Baker, K. (2005) Assessment in youth justice: Professional discretion and the use of Asset. Youth Justice, 5, 106–122.

Baker, K., Jones, S., Roberts, C. and Merrington, S. (2003) Validity and Reliability of Asset. London: Youth Justice Board.

Baker, K., Jones, S., Roberts, C. and Merrington, S. (2005) Further Development of Asset. London: Youth Justice Board.

Baker, K., Kelly, G. and Wilkinson, B. (2011) Assessment in youth Justice. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Bottoms, A. and Dignan, J. (2004) ‘Youth Justice in Great Britain.’ In M. Tonry and A. Doob (eds) Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Comparative and Cross-national Perspectives. London: University of Chicago Press.

Bottoms, A., Brown, P., McWilliams, B., McWilliams, W. and Nellis, M. (1990) Intermediate Treatment and Juvenile Justice: Key Findings and Implications from a National Survey of Intermediate Treatment Policy and Practice. London: HMSO.

Case, S.P. and Haines, K.R. (2009) Understanding Youth Offending: Risk Factor Research, Policy and Practice. Cullompton: Willan.

Cattell, J., Mackie, A., Prestage, Y. and Wood, M. (2013) Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS): Assessment and sentence planning. London: Ministry of Justice.

Crawford, A. and Newburn, T. (2003) Youth Offending and Restorative Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Edith Wilson (2013; Youth Justice Interventions – findings from the Juvenile Cohort Study (JCS). Ministry of Justice Analytical Series.

Farrington, D.P. (2007) ‘Childhood risk factors and risk-focused prevention’, in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Farrington, D.P. and Welsh, B.C. (2007) Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (2002) Restorative Justice: the last vestiges of welfare? in Muncie, J., Hughes, G. and McLaughlin, E. (eds) Youth Justice: Critical Readings, London, Sage, pp. 228- 237

Graef, R. (2000) Why Restorative Justice? Repairing the Harm Caused by Crime. London. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation

Gyateng, T., Moretti, A., May, T. and Turnbull, P.J. (2013) Young People and the Secure Estate: Needs and Interventions. London: Youth Justice Board.