[Subject/Course]
[Submission Date]
Introduction
In the United Kingdom, the Youth Justice Board is responsible for overseeing the youth justice system in the country. According to the law, children and adolescents (10-17 years of age) are subjected to custody if found involved in criminal activities. Violence and theft are the most common crimes for which juvenile offenders are convicted. As far as the major purpose of the youth justice system in UK is concerned, it is to make sure that the young offenders are managed properly. It needs to be mentioned here that the UK youth justice system stresses on the prevention of crimes by young people. Instead of punishing and incarcerating the wrongdoers in the first place, the UK youth justice system prefers to prevent offensive actions (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,”). This paper discusses and analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the youth justice system in the United Kingdom. It will also present a comparison of the different juvenile justice systems around the world with the UK youth justice system.
Strengths of the Youth Justice System in the United Kingdom
Over the last decade, the UK youth justice system has demonstrated great accomplishments with the reduction of the number of illicit crimes committed by juveniles. Most importantly, the number of adolescents entering the justice system has also diminished substantially. Moreover, there has also been a reduction in the number of juvenile crimes. Furthermore, there has been a considerable reduction in the number of juveniles being incarcerated. It needs to be mentioned that the Youth Justice Board has contributed tremendously in achieving this success. The effectiveness of the Youth Justice Board in introducing and implementing reforms within the UK youth justice system is commendable. The system has particularly strengthened with the diversion of resources to the young offenders most vulnerable to commit crimes in the future (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,” 3). It is important to consider these achievements as the spiraling factors of the UK youth justice system as “youth custody, which is expensive relative to other ways of dealing with young offenders, has fallen during a period when the number of adults in custody has continued to rise” (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,” 3).
It is said that prevention is better than cure. Therefore, the youth justice system in the UK has allocated millions of pounds to prevent youth crime in the country. It has also introduced various youth crime prevention programs under different names and different activities. However, the main purpose of these programs is to facilitate youth to participate in healthy activities and remain away from criminal acts. In addition, juveniles also enjoy the opportunity of learning different skills and receive guidance concerned with jobs or schools. Many programs are meant for group education while the remaining deals simply with a young individual under the supervision of a grown-up. ‘Youth Inclusion and Support Panels’ and ‘Youth Inclusion Programs” are the two most renowned programs for educating and mentoring young people in the United Kingdom.
The Youth Inclusion Programs (YIPs) are designed for children aged 8-17 years and last for certain time periods typically. If needed, the time periods can be extended depending on the interest of the young individuals and/or helpfulness of the activities. On the other hand, The Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) are composed of social workers or local volunteers who involve themselves with children aged 8-13 years. The principal aim of these panels is to guarantee the accessibility of participants to local services. As a consequence, children are basically facilitated to stay away from crimes and subsequent troubles (Lassieur 48). In a number of cases, families are also requested to involve and agree on the intervention plan that includes the expectations and support type. The mentioned programs “have incorporated into their ‘preventive’ approaches a process of selection based on those most ‘at risk’, while the courts have been given a range of powers to impose orders proactively, ostensibly to prevent offending, including antisocial behavior orders, child safety orders and parenting orders” (Canton & Hancock 7). Thus, the teams, law enforcement agencies, and justice system in the UK work in unison to prevent juvenile crimes thereby strengthening the entire system.
It is no secret that every field requires adequate research for development and improvement. It is indeed a valuable strength of the youth justice system in United Kingdom that research is commissioned by The Youth Justice Board. The research is used for the evaluation and assessment of the policies and practices of the youth justice system. As a consequence, the results are utilized for the development of effective practice guidance. Furthermore, these findings help in ensuring that the available resources are used appropriately (Canton & Hancock 333).
Although the juvenile justice system in the country has various strengths as discussed above, there are a number of weaknesses in the same system that deteriorates its foundation. It is rather an appalling fact that the number of children imprisoned in the United Kingdom (England and Wales) is the highest as compared to other countries in the Western Europe. According to an estimation, “In the UK, we lock up 23 children per 100,000 of the population, compared to six in France, two in Spain and 0.2 in Finland” (Allison). It is also asserted that there has been a persistent increase in the child imprisonment rate. Yet, a major percentage of imprisoned children have not been involved in the violent offenses. For instance, eight hundred and twenty-four children were put in jails in 2005-06. However, only forty-eight children had committed grave crimes (Allison).
Unfortunately, the youth justice system in UK that is meant to deal with children breaking the law has dreadfully failed to prevent reoffending. Estimates reveal that approximately 82% of male juveniles who are sentenced for detention are again imprisoned within 2 years of release. It can be, therefore, concluded that society cannot be made better by locking up children whether they commit offensive crimes or not. The whole scenario points out that the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom does not employ a fair, civilized, and helpful approach when dealing with young offenders (Allison).
As mentioned, the juvenile delinquents serving custodial or graver community sentences have more probability of reoffending later in their lives. This must be considered a serious weakness in the youth justice system as children and adolescents tend to choose a life of crime when given undeserved sentences. It is also unfortunate that around seventy percent of youth reprobates go through considerable difficulties in communication. Sadly, the assessment forms that exist currently fail to recognize this issue in a serious manner. In fact, the justice system presumes that the young wrongdoers understand the reasons of their sentences. However, this lack of understanding and communication heightens the risk that the sentence plans are not understandable to the offenders (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,” 7).
It is a saddening reality that “the ASSET assessment used by the YJB does not identify these vulnerable young people, or those with learning difficulties” (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,” 45). Surely, this weakens the overall youth justice system as it fails to make the offenders realize and comprehend the factors behind their sentences and punishments. In addition, the Youth Justice Board usually fails to integrate the offenders back into their respective communities as the vulnerable young offenders are not identified. Also, there are innumerable young offenders with extremely poor communication skills that it is impossible for them to be benefitted by the prison education programs. For that reason, there is a dire need to employ speech and language therapists for the reduction of offending in the youth justice system. This weakness of communication gap can be overcome if the young people are directly trained by professionals and learn effective communication skills (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,” 45).
One of the weaknesses in the country’s youth justice system is that The Youth Justice Board possesses inadequate data concerning “what interventions work, making it difficult to achieve better value for money from the £800 million spent in the system” (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,” 7). If there is no proof of the effectiveness of interventions, there is always a probability of having reduced funding for the accomplishment of services at the frontline. Consequently, this could result in the budget cutting impacting even the most effective and valuable interventions. In addition, the lack of adequate knowledge certainly weakens the Board as it does not know about the interventions Youth Offending Teams use as well as the extent of their usefulness. As a result, there could be no effective dissemination of best practice (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,” 8). If The Board fails to acquire the knowledge about the effective interventions, there could be no significant outcomes to prevent youth crime in the country.
The above discussion highlights the bitter truth that the performance supervision systems and ‘therapies’ employed by The Youth Justice Board do not focus on outcomes as needed. Instead, the entire focus is given to the processing methods. Without stressing on the achievement of positive outcomes, the youth justice system in the United Kingdom cannot perform brilliantly (“The Youth Justice System in England and Wales,” 8).
Comparison of Youth Justice System in the UK and Youth Justice Systems in Other Countries
As far as the age of criminal responsibility is concerned, it is best described as the spot at which a child can be prosecuted for a crime by the jurisdiction. However, the age of criminal responsibility is different in juvenile justice systems throughout the world. In the United Kingdom (England and Wales), the age of criminal responsibility (CR) is 10. On the other hand, it is 14 in China and Japan, 7 in India, 12 in Canada, 13 in France, and 16 in Russia. The CR in United States of America is also 10 (similar to the United Kingdom).
It is significant to mention that a lot of countries in the European continent consider a child’s involvement in criminal activities as a matter of welfare. They consider it “an occasion to energize the various child welfare agencies to examine what is causing the child’s offending behavior and to address those causes – be it educational difficulties, mental health needs or histories of abuse and neglect” (“Punishing Children: A Survey of Criminal Responsibility and Approaches across Europe” 2). On the other hand, the youth justice system in the United Kingdom acts completely different in response – with punishment as the primary means. For the same reason, the country is renowned as having the highest custodial populations composed of young offenders in the continent. When compared with the United States of America, the drastic difference in the UK’s youth justice system can be seen with no difficulty. The juvenile justice system in the USA focuses on juvenile rehabilitation and treatment on an individual basis. As mentioned, the system in UK focuses more on prevention of crime rather than delving into the issues that nurture crime.
Unlike other European countries, the government and the justice system in the UK does not empower local administrators to address and provide the needs of children. Instead, it treats the child as an offender and not as a whole child. There has been a continued trend of providing social welfare services to youth through the agencies working under criminal justice system (“Punishing Children: A Survey of Criminal Responsibility and Approaches across Europe” 2).
Conclusion
Works Cited
Canton, Robert, and David Hancock. Dictionary of Probation and Offender Management. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Lassieur, Allison. Violent Crime. Chicago, IL: Heinemann Library, 2012. Print.
Punishing Children: A Survey of Criminal Responsibility and Approaches across Europe. London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2008. Print.
Shoemaker, Donald J. International Handbook on Juvenile Justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996. Print.
The Youth Justice System in England and Wales: Reducing Offending by Young People: Twenty-first Report of 2010-11: Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence. London: Stationery Office, 2011. Print.
