CSPS- Claudia Saxton

Looking backwards, we can see that youth justice is both complex and volatile. Taking this observation into account, and looking forwards, how can a youth justice system which is both meaningful and legitimate be created? [Cambridge Law Tripos, 2020].

By Claudia Saxton

Looking backwards it is clear that there hasn’t been a consistent approach towards the youth justice system. Instead, it has been too reactive and politically focused. An ideal youth justice system should be child focused to make it meaningful to the individuals who it will impact and legitimate as it will be based on logic.

Complex and Volatile

To create an ideal youth justice system (YJS), it is necessary to understand why it has been so complex and volatile to address these issues and ensure it directly addresses the needs of youths. Over the last century, the youth justice system has been back and forth regarding its focus between welfare and punishment. The 1933 CYPA established the welfare principle, but this never meant a pure focus on welfare and rehabilitation and since then there have been many changes bringing the system back to a more punitive one. These punitive trends have been linked to high profile cases such as the murder of James Bulger in 1993.31 This resulted in the removal of the presumption of doli incapax in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Government doubled the maximum sentence in young offender institutions for 15–17-year-olds from 1-2 years. The case was highly politicised and encouraged toughness in the youth justice system (Goldson 2013).32 By reacting to events rather than evidence the Government fail to understand why youths commit crime meaning the system is not meaningful or legitimate and rather just responds to what the public want.

31

Sharratt, T., 1993. James Bulger 'battered with bricks'. The Guardian,. 32 Goldson, B., 2013. ‘Unsafe, Unjust and Harmful to Wider Society’: Grounds for Raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility in England and Wales. Youth Justice, 13(2), pp.111-130.

13

Child first; offender second

A child first, offender second approach (as practised in Wales)33 focuses on child friendly practices ensuring that the child and their rights and needs are prioritised. This approach is meaningful and legitimate responding to the evidence regarding youth offenders. An approach led by adult centric decision making has been shown to lack inclusionary and equitable methods accommodating to the standard required by children thus making it not legitimate (Charles and Haines).34 The YJS should be meaningful to young people as those are who it affects. This in turn will make it meaningful to the public if awareness is brought, supported by evidence, of what actually works regarding preventing youths from offending. For the system to be legitimate, it needs to be based on logic, which it is currently not and is more reactive and politicised with the Government just responding to what the public reaction is. This however is detrimental. For example, with Thompson and Venables, the real social services issue was not adequately addressed looking into the extreme abuse and neglect they had suffered and instead the YJS turned more punitive clearly not addressing the pressing needs of youths who commit crime.35 We know that young people who commit crime face issues from five factors: family, school, community, peers and individual (Farrington 2006) and thus the YJS should reflect that and aim to resolve these issues.36 This approach should have three key aspects as set out below.

1. Maximum Diversion, Minimum Intervention

As the proposed youth justice system will be child focused, this means doing what is best for the child. Maximum diversion and minimum intervention is the best way in keeping youths permanently out of the YJS. The more you bring children into the YJS the more difficult it is to escape (McAra 2017).37 This approach includes addressing the issues that lead to youths committing

33 Drakeford, M., 2009. Children first, offenders second: youth justice in a devolved Wales. Criminal Justice Matters, 78(1), pp.8-9. 34 Case, S. and Haines, K., 2020. Abolishing Youth Justice Systems: Children First, Offenders Nowhere. Youth Justice, 21(1), pp.3-17. 35 Sharratt, T., 1993. James Bulger 'battered with bricks'. The Guardian,. 36 Farrington, D. P. (2006). Family Background and Psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 229–250). 37 Liebling, A., Maruna, S. and McAra, L., n.d. The Oxford handbook of criminology.

14

crime. It involves tackling poverty and promoting a wide social justice agenda as key to reduce crime and create safer communities (McAra and McVie 2015).38 Some characteristics of youth offenders in England in Wales include: 25% special needs, 15% excluded from school, 41% regularly truanting, 42% under-achieving at school, over 50% used cannabis and 9% risk of self-harm (Morgan 2009).39 Furthermore, children in care who enter the justice system are 7x more likely to be incarcerated than those not in care (Day et al 2020).40 A diversionary approach aims to address these characteristics, thus keeping youths out of the system and resolving the issues. Diversion also has a positive effect on reducing recidivism (Wilson and Hoge 2013).41 A child centred approach would encourage diversion all the way through the YJS thus being more meaningful for the child to keep them out of the system and legitimate in basing the system upon evidence which tells us that it is hard to escape the YJS once in it.

Furthermore, many youth offenders are not life persistent offenders but rather adolescent limited and more likely to become ‘tomorrow’s new father’ (McNeil et al 2012) and thus this diversionary approach is more meaningful reflecting the reality that most youth offenders grow out of crime and thus the best approach is to keep them away from the criminal justice system (CJS) rather than trapping them in it.42

2. Education

Once a young person is involved in the youth justice system, one of the main focuses should be education. We know that many of those involved in the YJS face issues within the education system (42% under achieving at school (Morgan 2009)) and thus one way to tackle this therefore is to ensure they receive a satisfactory education leading them away from a life of crime.43

38 McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2017). Developmental and life-course criminology: Innovations, impacts and applications. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Criminology (6 ed.). Oxford University Press. 39 Morgan, R. and McMahon, W., 2009. First-time youth offender entrants: more smoke and mirrors. Criminal Justice Matters, 76(1), pp.10-12. 40 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2021. Experiences and pathways of children in care in the youth justice system. 41 Wilson, H. and Hoge, R., 2012. The Effect of Youth Diversion Programs on Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(5), pp.497-518. 42 McNeil, J., 2012. Trans Mental Health Study. 43 Morgan, R. and McMahon, W., 2009. First-time youth offender entrants: more smoke and mirrors. Criminal Justice Matters, 76(1), pp.10-12.

15

Education is the way in which youths will be diverted from crime, gaining qualifications and skills for employment and understanding the importance of individual responsibility and self-discipline and respect (MOJ/DOE 2013).44 Oppose to youth prisons there should be secure schools (Taylor 2016)45 directly solving why many youths enter the YJS and therefore being meaningful reflecting that today’s offender is tomorrows citizen (McNeil et al 2012) so we should invest in them through education.46 Education should not only be at the heart of custody (Taylor), but the whole youth justice system since youths are maturing until their mid 20s.47

3. Problem Solving

The YJS should also aim to solve issues that youths committing crime face, to prevent them from entering the YJS or re-entering it. This is enacted in Wales with the child first offender second approach through the Swansea Bureau Initiative.48 They aim to divert young people from the CJS and also support young people and their families with services to meet their needs. This includes assistance with housing, help with drug and alcohol misuse, mental health support etc. By aiming to problem solve the YJS has an approach of collective responsibility therefore involving more than just the police and the courts but also social services thus providing meaningful support to the youth aiming to help them oppose to primarily punish. In Leeds, the local authority aim to prevent the number of children going into care instead focusing in supporting families (review of Youth Justice System 2016).49 This is therefore meaningful and legitimate as family issues is one of the risk factors of offending (Farrington 2006).50

44 Ministry of Justice, 2013. Transforming Youth Custody Putting education at the heart of detention. 45 Ministry of Justice, 2016. Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. 46 McNeil, J., 2012. Trans Mental Health Study. 47 Ministry of Justice, 2016. Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. 48 Haines, K., Case, S., Davies, K. and Charles, A., 2013. The Swansea Bureau: A model of diversion from the Youth Justice System. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 41(2), pp.167-187. 49 Ministry of Justice, 2016. Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. 50 Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Risk, promotive, and protective factors in youth offending: Results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45 63-70.

16

Conclusion

Thus, a YJS should be child focused aiming to address the issues that these youths face and keeping them away from the CJS. This will address the complex and volatile nature of the system ensuring it remains focused on helping youths oppose to reacting to public outrage. One main criticism of this is that the Government will respond to the public reactions with political motivations. Furthermore, the reality of implementing such an approach raises financial issues. It is therefore the duty of the Government to promote the spread of accurate evidence regarding youth offending oppose to exaggeration by the media and should prioritise supporting youths and their families which may be economically viable in the future through diverting people from the CJS.

17