The Changes To The Youth Justice System

The Changes To The Y go forthh nicety System in that location commit been numerous changes to the spring chicken arbiter clay everywhere the courses, having varying effects on young person discourtesy. To discuss whether this statement is true or non, we must behavior at the some(prenominal) judicature legislations and initiatives that drive tried to lower iniquity. The 20th century has seen a huge array of moral panics (defined as an over exaggerated response to a problem, justified or not) due to some(prenominal) social changes, such as alcohol, drugs, pop nicety, football, music, film, television and video games these ar all seen as ca engrosss to youth crime. The moral panic began with the Mods and Rockers who had communicatory subcultures during the 1960s which led to skinheads, l periodr louts, yob culture, football hooligans, rave culture and todays small offenders and anti social behaviour. The 1970s brought more violence on the individuals responsibili ty, the 1980s brought corporatism where evaluator especial(a)ists had a greater influence on policies and in the 1990s where youth crime has been heavily featured in the media and in that respect has been the recognition of sub-criminal be confuseivity such as anti-social behaviour. Youths work been seen as out of control in the twenty- show clock century because of societies strong sense of moral philosophy but this has weakened for young volume, young commonwealth these days be constantly looking for fun and excitement, but youth crime slewnot be labelled as a moral panic, match to the Telegraph1from 2005 to 2008, The heel of under(a)-18s convicted or cautioned over red offences rose from 17,590 to 24,102 which is an increase of 37 per cent, nonetheless it could be argued that cuttingspapers such as this argon fuelling moral panics.The master(prenominal) changes to the youth justice system began with Labours win in 1997, but the system does have a history. The vie w on youth justice has changed dramatically since the runner of the 19h century where children were treated as adults in court, the Reformatory Schools serve 1854 created special institutions to reform children in need of do by through schooling this was the first major legislation towards tackling youth crime. In 1908 The Children Act was passed which abolished imprisonment of insubstantials and disjointed juveniles from adults and began a more welf atomic number 18 based approach to youth crime, juvenile delinquency had started to rise by the First World War and was seen as a problem, A social commentator in 1917 stated their cant and silliness and the distorted, unreal Americanised view of life must have a deteriorating effect and moderate to the formation of false ideals, (cited in Muncie 199950)2. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 then defined a child to be under the age of 14 and a young person between the ages 14 and 18, children under the age of 10 were deemed incapable of doing wrong and exempt from prosecution, this is known as doli incapax and it created a panel of magistrates to deal with youth cases, it also created loco pargonntis where the courts could manage for the parent. During 1948 detention centres were formed, a very early version of todays young offenders institutes and was a more punitive approach. Then came the Young Persons Act in 1969 was an important act and made many changes, it gave a bigger emphasis on the social worker and proposed that offenders under the age of 14 with care alternatively of punishment, law of nature were also made to make use of cautions, however afterwards, the act was criticised for being too soft as rates of crime began to rise. Because of its many flaws, The felon Justice Act 1982 and restricted the use of care and tutelar orders, Borstals were replaced with fixed term youth gyves orders, new sentences were created and abolished numerous propagation afterwards until the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which rid youth custody and replaced it with detention in youth offender institutes. The Criminal Justice and world Order Act 1994 brought secure training for those aged 12 to 15, The horror (Sentences) Act 1997 extended community sentences and introduced tagging. Cautioning was revised in the Criminal Justice Act 1998 which restricted the use of reprimands and warnings. Before 1997 figures show that approximately 70% of all crimes were committed by a small number of young men and so with Labours win in 1997, their overhaul of the youth justice system had 3 objectives to deal with Prevent youngsters from falling in to crime, extend the criminal justice system with more sentencing choices and strain sentencing on preventing recall anger3. Those aged under 18 are sentenced differently from adults as the criminal justice system remember that they are less amenable for their actions than adults and that sentencing should be used for reform as well as/or instead of puni shment, this did change however with the killing of James Bulger by ii 10 year old boys in 1993 where the murder was so violent they were tried in an adult court. The case caused a huge countrywide debate on how to handle young offenders much of this was fuelled by the media. The governing body began its reform with the 1998 white paper No more excuses A new Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales this in turn lead to The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which implicated The Youth Justice control board for England and Wales to deal with young offenders and reduce re offend, the Youth Justice Service for topical anesthetic anaesthetic authorities to confront crime, Youth Offending Teams which included members from probation, social services, law of nature etc., anti-social behaviour orders, new community orders, local child curfew and others, although this act did insure punishment, welfare, action plans, objectives and performance reviews, it has been widely criti cised for being too harsh with parenting orders, curfews and ASBOs. in that location is a clash between ASBOs which exclude offenders and the Youth Offending Teams which has a more inclusionist approach. There have been concerns that most of these efforts do not tackle the root causes of crime nor do they influence good behaviour in youths. However this act has many advantages, in that respect is a strong emphasis on the welfare of the child such as the early interposition and focus on parenting and the parents responsibility to the child, the emphasis on restorative justice illustrates the persistence of welfare principles and the act has led to greater funding for the youth justice system4.The Home Office website lists the main causes of youth crime as troubled home life poor attainment at school, truancy and school exclusion, drug or alcohol misuse and rational illness, deprivation such as poor housing or homelessness and/or peer group pressure and these are the main areas of concern and focus points of the Youth Crime Action Plan of 2008 which set out the giving medications goals for the next year.The act led to huge amounts of money being spent on the youth justice system like never before, approximately 380 one million million million which doubled to 648.5 million by 2007. Youth courts were established by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and deal with those aged 10 to 17, Labours plans were to try and hold young offenders out of court and emphasised the use of ASBOs community orders etc., however, the tenderness of Crime and Justice studies performed an strong-minded scrutinize of the system in 2007 and rig the key priority was speeding up the youth justice extremity5resulting in baffled targets for Labour. It claims that the majority of the budget was spent of custody and not prevention which is pointless if the government do not want youths in custody.As mentioned earlier, the Youth Justice board was introduced in 1998 and has changed the yo uth crime system, by trying to help young offenders, for example, accommodation and resettlement, alternatives to custody, education, training and recitation and wellness and has set its egotism targets to reduce self-reported crime and the amount of children overall in the service, however as the independent audit states Despite continuous commitments made by the YJB to reduce the number of children sentenced to custody, the latest targets have not been met. In fact, at present, performance is deteriorating, with numbers increasing by 8% since March 2003 against a target of a 10% reduction.6It could be argued that although the reality of the Youth Justice Board was a step in the chastise direction, it hasnt nearly been as successful as it could have been and is failing.Next are the Youth Offending teams, set up in every local authority in England and Wales and is represented by hatful from the police and probation to health, education and social services. According to the a udit, Labour used budgets from social and health care to fund youth crime prevention which according to the report is spanking to keeping youth pique down youth pique teams are not cut out for the social aspect of youth offending which led to missed targets and overworking. The report also found that youth offending teams can only regulate youth crime and cannot reduce it which should be reformed in policy. Although many changes have been made and a carry on of money spent, there is increasing fear of gang and knife crime.To have a clearer view on this, we must look at statistics the main supplier of these is the OCJS (Offending, Crime and Justice Survey) who in 2006 performed a self insurance coverage offending survey to 10 to 25 year olds. For example here(predicate) we can see the proportion of 10- to 25-year-olds committing an offence in the last 12 months, at its highest on 26% of all 10 to 25 year olds are committing crime, which is less than a 3rd of all young people, acco rding to the survey 12 per cent of males aged from 10 to 25 tell they had committed an offence designated as grievous, eight per cent were classified as frequent offenders, and five per cent as serious and frequent offenders7. 10 to 25 year olds is a wide area of think over which could include thousands of young people, of this of only at the most 12% are committing serious crimes, the statistics could be a lot worse. As stated in the compend (it surveys people aged) 10 to 25 living in the general theatre population in England and Wales. The survey does not cover young people living in institutions, including prisons, or the homeless, and thus omits some high offending groups. This is a relatively big omission, if they do not survey the people in prison who have been incarcerated of crimes they are leaving out sort of a vital part of their research. Also, the research is only a study which involves interviewing they interviewed past interviewees from 2003 and 2004 and used new people. Yet if the survey was for 2005, they would only use new people, they also compare to the 2003 and 2004 surveys, which would suggest they are comparing the corresponding people. As mentioned the survey is predominately made up of interviewing, it does not take police crime statistics into account which could give totally different results.According to the government report- Crime Action Plan One year on Summary, they have been successful in reducing crime, re-offending fell between 2000 and 2007 by 24% The number of young people in the criminal justice system has gone down, by 9% from 2006/7 to 2007/8, more young people are taking part in their communities than using alcohol and drugs and there had been a 22% fall in sharp object assault. The independent audit however protests with this, saying that the aim of reducing young offending in Crime and Disorder act has yet to be achieved and that self reported offending is not declining.In conclusion, I would agree and disagree with changes to the youth justice system have little impact on the youth crimes, in agreement rates of youth offending have declined, theres is a lot more social support for young offenders, there has been the recognition of the causes of crime, with the creation if anti social behaviour orders, less children are kept out of court, the creation of young offending teams and the youth justice board is a huge change from the past and the government has actively tried to reduce youth crime with a much weaken funded system. However, in some aspects the statement could be true, some people believe that there is too much focus on welfare, and not affluent on punishment, New Labour had failed even to mitigate the continuing change magnitude use of custody of young offenders, let alone reverse it8, The government seem to be focusing more on some areas than others. The independent audit found that the budget for youth crime was taken from education, health and social services which were t hemselves vital to young offenders they found that most of the governments targets had been missed Youth offending teams are failing and cannot work efficiently. As the audit says A decade on from the creation of the YJB and YOTs, and at a time of rising concerns about youth gangs and violence involving guns and knives, the time has come to pass judgment the role and purpose of the youth justice system and to consider what it can realistically achieve in addressing youth offending.