Youth Justice Policy in Britain (1945-1981) †from Punishment to Welfare

IntroductionThe discussion of the spring chicken arbitrator policy in Britain has re-gained importance in the aftermath of the August 2011 riots, which spread across capital of the United Kingdom and other major cities in the country. Think tank analysts and policy experts argued, that the youths which allegedly took part in the riots, were disillusioned and de-motivated young people from broken homes (Politics UK, 2011). The deep social problem behind youth eng whilement in the London riots raised the question most the efficacy of the youth justice body in Britain, and debates about its institutional reform permeated the political discourse.After the gruesome murder of James Bulger in 1993 by two ten-year old boys the public and policy-makers became convinced, that only a popular policy reform of the youth justice form is not sufficient. Rather a reform of specific sectors such as the ones dealing with anti-social behaviour and annulus criminal offense was much more urgent ( protector, 2011). The purpose of this short see is to critically review the different phases in the development of the youth justice system from the 1940s to 1981. Based on the conclusions, in the final section recommendations for policy reform will be made. Research questionThe purpose of this essay is to critically approach the different stages in the evolution of the youth justice policy in Britain. Based on this observation, the paper will provide an assessment of how the system has evolved and what the main trends in its transformation are. For clarity the author has decided to separate the observations in the following stages from punishment to welfare, young offenders enter the alliance, and the strengthening of the Intermediate Treatment. each(prenominal) one of them will be critically analysed in the following sections. The youth justice system in Britain a reviewBefore we proceed with the tryout of the main developments in the youth justice system in the set period , it is important to provide a brief overview of the main components and structures of this system.Similarly to other types of youth justice systems, the British one inclines towards taproom, rather then retribution (Bottoms & Dignan, 2004). Bottoms and Dignan (2004) refer to the British youth justice system as a chastisementalist and committed to the prevention of committing offences. The idea of the correctionalist system implies stronger intervention on behalf of the state, as opposed to earlier views such as letting young offenders grow out of the crime.This characteristic trend, experts argue, reflects a much more complex and multi-level approach to dealing with youth crime, involving different elements such as parents and agency teams. The trend has been accompanied with an intensive institutional reform, such as the introduction of the semi-independent body of the youth nicety Board with the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (Community Care, 2010). In the years to follow, there has been a trend for the oneness of all activities related with youth justice under the umbrella of a single department the Ministry of umpire, in order to create accountability and higher levels of certificate of indebtedness in one of the most important and problematic policy areas in Britain. The 1940s from punishment to welfareIt is now clear that societys views on crime change over time and are susceptible to historical and social conditions. The youth justice system in Britain is an example of the transformation of the concepts of crime and offender in social and political terms. Therefore the track young criminals have been treated by the criminal justice system has been a ca character of reform throughout the years.In the late 1930s and early 1940s, perhaps one of the most important developments in the youth justice system is that a line between children and adult offenders was finally drawn. For the first time in the early 30s and 40s, the courts were obliged to con sider the welfare of the child (Thorpe et. al, 1980). This marked a monumental transformation of the whole justice system, because it determined a different role of the courts, related not only with taking punitive action, but also correction and care for the young offenders. It is now clear that the transformation from punishment to welfare has been later underpinned in another important document the UN Convention on the Rights of the youngster (Youth Justice Board, 2008). As the later stages of the British youth justice system demonstrate, the latter has always been responsive to the developments, taking place in the field of gentleman rights at any particular time. The sixties young offenders and the communityThe trend towards welferism which started in the early 1930s continued in the next several decades, and had its upper side in the 1960s, when a special legislation, concerned with the social integration and correction of the young offenders was passed (Youth Justice B oard, 2008 Thorpe et. al, 1980). In 1969 the Labour government passed a legislation to premise a revised youth justice system, based on welfare principles and reformation of criminals (Thorpe et. al, 1980). The 1969 Children and Young Persons Act emphasized the role of the community as the environment, which would joke a major role in the social integration of those who committed offences. The act also established the so-called halfway house which was the middle way between being subject to a Supervision Order (which requires minimum contact between supervisor and young person) and being taken into care (Youth Justice Board, 2008 Children and Young Persons Act, 1969). This new establishment came to be defined as Intermediate Treatment (IT) and according to some observers was the foundation of the modern youth justice system. some other intended development of this period, which however, did not come to fruition, was the attempt to increase the age of criminal responsibility from 1 0 to 14 years. Prior to the 1969 Act, the criminal responsibility age was only 8 years (Thorpe, et.al, 1980).The developments which took place between the 1940s and the late 1960s are a result of the rise of the welfare state in Britain and the rest of Europe. A major historical and sociological trend, the rise of the welfare state, which affected almost all policy sectors, was provoked by the advent of capitalism and consumerism, which according to social historians, exacerbated the class divisions in British society (Greenaway et. al, 1992). The youth justice system was no exception of this trend, and the establishments of the 1969 Act were a signifier of the league between community and policy. Youth crime was no longer a detached criminal activity for which only courts had responsibility in the late 1960s it became a priority for the whole of the British society. The 1970s and 1980s the strengthening of the Intermediate Treatment This decade was marked by persistence in the community-based sermon of young offenders. The role of community remained strong, and some judicial changes, such as the inclusion of specified activities in the Intermediate Treatment occurred. These were used to persuade magistrates to use communal sentences, instead of custodial sentences (Youth Justice Board, 2008).In this sense, the young offenders were made to participate in the welfare of the community as part of their correction process. In the light of these developments, it is interesting to notice that the connection between the community and young offenders remained twofold young offenders were still treated as part of society, despite their violations. At the same time they were expected to contribute to its development. In its turn, society was to participate in their rehabilitation and integration in the post-offence stage. This is an important characteristics of the British youth justice system, because it reveals two things that there is no positive connection be tween decreased custody and the level of youth offences, and that the British society took a middle situation between two types of justice restorative justice, focusing on repairing the harms, resulting from the offence, and retributive justice, which relates to facing the consequences of the punishment imposed. This middle stance was about to change in the 1990s, when the feral murder of two-year old James Bulger by two ten-year old boys was to push back the youth justice system towards punitive actions. Conclusion and recommendationsThis essay has attempted to critically examine the main stages in the development of the British youth system between 1945 and 1981. Two major developments have been discussed the transition towards welferism and the go towards correction, rather than punishment and custodial action. The role of the society has remained significant, and despite the developments of the early 1990s, the re-integration of young offenders has remained on the agenda.Af ter the murder of James Bulger in 1993, public guardianship was once more shifted towards the reform of the youth justice system, and more specifically against the prevention of offending and re-offending, rather than mending the consequences of it. Therefore it is important that government efforts targeted towards rescue all the institutions involved in the British youth system under a coordinated scheme of action. Different units such as social workers, community volunteers, the police and those involved in education are to work together through enhanced dialogue. This means that the sectoralism in the criminal justice system involve to be reduced, and replaced with harmonization of efforts of different actors on all levels. This would ensure a holistic, rather than sectionalized approach to solving issues, related with youth crime in Britain.Bibliography Bottoms, A. & Dignan, J. (2004) Youth Justice in Great Britain, Crime and Justice, Vol. 31Children and Young Persons Act (19 69), 22 October, The National Archives, usable at http//www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1969/54Retrieved 03.03.2012 Community Care (2010) Ministry of Justice to take control of Youth Justice Board, 20th May, Thursday,Available at http//www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/20/05/2010/114543/ministry-of-justice-to-take-control-of-youth-justice-board.htmRetrieved 03.03.2012Greenaway, J.R., Smith, S. & Street, J. (1992) Deciding Factors in British Politics, London Routledge ch. 2 pp. 29-39, ch 3.Guardian (2011) What next for youth policy?, August, 25,Available at http//www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/blog/2011/aug/25/tony-blair-youth-policy-intervention-reformRetrieved 03.03.2012Politics UK (2011) Comment What is causing the riots in London?, Nick Cowen, Monday, 8th of August,Available athttp//www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/08/08/comment-what-is-causing-the-riots-in-londonRetrieved 03.03.2012Thorpe, D.H, Smith, D., Green, C.J, & Paley, J.H (1980) Out of Care The Community Support of Juvenile Offenders Allen and UnwinYouth Justice Board (2008) A Brief History of the Youth Justice agreement,Available at http//labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/5193/YJ_k523_1/sco.htmRetrieved 03.03.2012