Reviewing the UK Youth Criminal Justice System

Introduction

In the past three years, the youth criminal justice system in the UK has been under much uncertainty. In 2015, the Justice minister, Michal Grove, announced that a review of the criminal justice system would be conducted, with much focus on the characteristics or nature of offending children between the age of ten to seventeen; and how to prevent such offenses (Cunneen et al, 2018). Furthermore, according to Duke et al (2020), the review would focus on improving the effectiveness with which the youth justice system, together with its partners, would respond to child offences, how to prevent such offences, rehabilitate the offenders and repair the harm caused by the offences (Gray, 2019). Unfortunately, with no meaningful reason, the review did not cover important items such as how children are treated in court and the criminal responsibility age limit. However, it was suggested that the focus of the review and subsequently the proposed amendments to the system would bring some positive change to the criminal justice system (Cunneen, 2020).

The anticipation was that the review would be publicised by June 2016, which did not happen (Haines & Case, 2018). This delay was attributable to the expectation that the government would ratify the report’s recommendations (which did not happen), and several other events such as the Brexit referendum and the ministerial changes after Brexit (Barn et al, 2018). However, the report appeared in 2016 albeit not with the status of a ‘departmental review’, casting doubts on government’s full endorsement (Hampson, 2018).

Despite the wide rage recommendations by the Taylor report, several the recommendations were either ignored or rejected by the government, with reasons that some were too vague to implement while others would be considered in future (Daykin et al 2017). Nonetheless, some of the recommendations that were ignored by the government include the putting the child first offender second proposals, the proposal that child offenders should be treated different from adult offenders, and the proposal that education should be at the centre-stage of response to child offenders (Abrams et al 2018).

Contrastingly though, the government’s first line of response was that the youth criminal justice system’s first objective is to ‘punish crime’ and later claims that the system’s statutory aim is to reduce or prevent child offending and reoffending. Yet, Taylor’s report called for a clear distinction between the court’s role in identifying guilt where offence has been denied and the action that should be taken to repair the harm and rehabilitate the child after determining the offence. Furthermore, Taylor’s report proposes that the latter role should be achieved by creating a Children’s Panel that would develop and implement plans that address the causes of children’s offending behaviour including education, welfare and health issues (Bateman & Wigzell, 2020). However, the government, through its official response to the report, merely committed to oversee how the recommendations would be integrated into the current statutory framework.

Therefore, it is fair to claim that the current youth criminal justice system has been characterised by a lack of clarity, which has prevented innovation and effective use of resources. However, this lack of clarity has been a continuation of a trend that has been in place for several years. Perhaps, from a positive standpoint, there has been a decrease in the number of youth offenders, especially in the period between 2008 and 2016. According to Edwards (2017), much of this decrease has been attributable to a decrease in the number of children and youth entering the criminal justice system (i.e. the first entrants). Whatever the reason though, the size of UK’s youth criminal justice system has significantly reduced compared to a decade ago. Similarly, there has been a drastic decline in the use of child imprisonment over the same period, leading to a decline in the population of the secure estate of children (Smith & Gray, 2019). Interestingly, the Smith and colleague noted a relationship between these two trends.

Recent data analysis of UK’s youth criminal justice system has focused on the shrinking youth criminal justice system. However, it is important to note that such analysis may not accurately reflect the true nature of changes in the volume of children’s criminal activity (Staines, 2017). Rather, according to Staines (2017), the criminal justice system’s response to such child offending is determined by changes in policy, legislation and practice, which also significantly determine the extent to which children are processed through the youth criminal justice system.

The campaign for a child-friendly youth criminal justice system has largely focused on advocating for the establishment of a right-based statutory framework for children’s law breaking (Ugwudike & Morgan, 2019). If that is the case, the above-mentioned trends of reducing number of children admitted into the youth criminal justice system are welcomed because they depict an increased diversion of child offenders from the formal criminal justice system and a declined overreliance on child incarceration – a development that is welcomed due to the negative health impact of imprisonment on children (For example, the COVID pandemic has resulted in children being locked in their prison cells for 23 hours a day.); and evidence supported (Matthews et al, 2018). Similarly, based on the above-mentioned developments, there needs to be an analysis targeting the context within which the contraction of youth criminal justice system is occurring. This is necessary in order to determine the extent to which the delivery of services to offending children is more or less taking a child-friendly approach; and whether the policy changes associated with the reducing number of youth in the criminal justice system are determined by a commitment to principles, evidence and political consideration (Ugwudike & Morgan, 2019). Such an analysis will also enable an assessment of how recent gains are fragile or subject to reversal.

Particularly, this is important because based on the recent youth criminal justice system data published in mid-2017, there was a clear indication that after eight years of constant decline in children under custody, there has been a sudden increase in children being sent to prison (Bateman, 2020). For instance, while the data shows that there was an increased diversion of children from the formal criminal justice system and a more sparingly use of child custody, there is a concern within the youth criminal justice system that the underlying punitive ethos continue to tamper with the responses to children in trouble. This is manifested in the 2015 example, whereby a mandatory custodial sentence was introduced for second offenders of 16 and 17 years old found in possession of any offensive weapon.

Theoretical Perspective of Crime and Deviance

Psychology and Deviance behaviour

Scholars have developed various theories to explain and understand why some people tend to behave contrary to the societal norms. Majorly, these theories seek to give sociological, psychological and biological explanations to offending behaviour, each category of theories taking a different approach. For instance, while the sociological explanations focus on how social forces, relationships and structures influence criminal behaviour, the biological explanations explain deviance from the perspective of biological and physical attributes that may influence criminal behaviour (Akers & Jennings, 2019). Similarly, psychological theories explain how criminal behaviour may be influenced by psychological factors.

Psychological approaches

There are numerous psychological approaches to explaining crime and deviance, all which have a few common characteristics. For instance, according to Ying et al (2019), the psychological approaches to crime and deviance believe that everyone is responsible for their own criminal acts. Moreover, all the psychological approaches assume that any behaviour within the individual is motivated by their personality (Vazsonyi et al, 2017). The third common characteristic of psychological approaches is that individual with criminal or deviant behaviour are most likely suffering from various forms of deficiencies, which means that criminal behaviour emanates from inappropriate, dysfunctional or abnormal mental occurrences within the offending individual. Nonetheless, the psychological approaches to crime and deviance shape up in three main theories namely the psychodynamic theory, the cognitive development theory and the learning theory.

The psychodynamic theory

Developed by Sigmund Freud, the psychodynamic theory helps to explain crime and deviance by stipulating that all humans have natural urges and drive in their unconscious. Moreover, the theory states that all humans have criminal tendencies that are however avoided through socialization (Hayward & Smith, 2017). Therefore, according to Etuk and Nnam (2018), the theory is helpful in explaining crime and deviance in the sense that if a child is not properly socialized, they may develop a disturbance attribute that leads to either inward or outward antisocial impulses. The children who direct their antisocial impulses inward may become neurotic while those who direct the impulses outward may develop criminal behaviour (Crank, 2018). If this is how crime and deviance behaviour develop, the children should be properly socialized to avoid disturbance attributes among them.

The Cognitive theory

The cognitive development theory explains crime and behaviour by stating that criminal behaviour emanates from how individual think about the law and morality (Lugosi, 2019). believers in this theory claim that moral reasoning occurs in three levels namely: the pre-conventional stage, the conventional stage and the post-conventional stage. The pre-conventional stage occurs during childhood, whereby the child’s moral reasoning is based on obedience and means to avoid punishment (Baron, 2017). In the conventional stage, which occurs at the end of middle childhood, an individual moral reasoning is significantly based on the expectations that the child’s parents and other close people have on them (Gottschalk, 2020). Lastly, in the post-conventional level, an individual’s moral reasoning goes beyond social conventions and thus make a refence to social system and laws of the land. This stage occurs in adulthood. Individuals who fail to progress in all these stages are likely to have a retarded moral development, leading to criminal or deviant behaviours (Wilcox & Cullen, 2018).

If this is the way criminal and deviance is developed, then actions to prevent or deal with criminal tendencies should cover the three stages. For instance, in the pre-conventional stage, parents and other family members should discipline their children, so that the children can effectively progress from this stage. Likewise, in the conventional stage, parents and other people close to the children should set higher expectations of good behaviour for the children, to enable them effectively to progress to the post-conventional stage. Lastly, in the post-conventional stage, policies, laws and regulations should be effective enough to guard and guide individuals against criminal behaviour.

The learning theory

The learning theory explains crime and deviant behaviour as a function of consequences and rewards. Therefore, believers in this theory claim that individuals may indulge in criminal activities depending on what they have learned, then maintain those behaviours based on the rewards or consequences of such crime (Gottschalk, 2017). For example, a teenage who observes their friend shoplift and not get caught or not get punished for their actions are likely to develop similar behaviour due to their perception that the friend is getting a reward for it. If this is the way people develop criminal tendencies, the taking away the reward can help eliminate criminal behaviour.

Existing Youth justice system in the UK

The UK’s youth justice system was established in 1998 in response to the realization that youth offending was not being dealt with most appropriately, and that no local authority was taking responsibility for children involved in crime (Hampson, 2018). Thus, a concern emerged over the antisocial behaviour and the fact that some delinquent children were causing an unnecessary disturbance in society (Hampson, 2018). In response to these concerns, the government created a system that could reduce child and youth offending by quickly reacting to any signs of criminal behaviour among the youth.

In 1988, the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 was introduced, requiring that all local authorities in the UK must form a Youth Offending Team (YOT), consisting of the social services, the police, the education sector and the health sector (Cunneen et al, 2018). The main aim of the YOTs, according to Duke et al (2020), was to develop and implement a more consistent approach to dealing with youth offending, whereby all the agencies would work together to prevent and manage youth crime. The YOTs were consolidated and managed by management boards whose membership consisted of senior officers from the respective departments.

Since the establishment of YOTs, much progress has been made in tackling youth offending. Edwards (2017) observes that before the introduction of the 1988 Act, both the police and other government agencies found themselves on opposite sides when it comes to managing the issue of youth crime. However, after the formation of the YOTs, it is not unusual to see the police and the social service personnel collaborating against youth offending – with little suspicion or antagonism. Over the years the YOTs have developed the necessary expertise, knowledge and skills to support and work with communities in addressing some of the most challenging youth offences (Cunneen et al, 2018).

The current youth criminal justice system in the UK operates under a multi-agency approach. According to Daykin et al (2017), the few cases of youth offending is dealt with through a coordinated action – coordinating different services not only to rehabilitate the offenders but also to repair and improve their life prospects. Staines (2017) opines that in most cases, it is the health and education systems that can have the greatest impact on offenders, and thus great improvements can be achieved in those areas.

From a health perspective, Staines (2017) argues that the UK’s health system plays a significant role in preventing youth offending because many children who engage in criminal behaviour have learning, behavioural or mental difficulties (Staines, 2017) – and most of these conditions are often undiagnosed. It is therefore important to tackle these problems as early as possible to reduce or prevent youth offending.

However, in a review of the UK’s current health system and its preparedness to address the issue of youth offending, Duke et al (2020) reported several levels of disappointments that are worth noting. For example, the author notes that children have experienced consistent difficulties in accessing mental health services when they need them. In some areas there is a seemingly a high impossibility for the involvement of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), and that in some cases, the children show signs of palpable distress, making both their behaviour and distress possible to be handled by services providers who may not even be specialist in mental health service provision (Cunneen et al, 2018).

The children with distress and behaviour that meet the threshold for support by mental health specialists are often not able to access that care. Instead, according to Staines (2017), they are juts scheduled to attend the clinics even though they come from chaotic families who are not able to help them attend the clinics at the right time. If they miss off three appointments, according to Edwards (2017), they are struck off from the appointment list and will therefore have to go through the assessment and appointment booking stage again. This implies that any child with acute difficulties who present a danger to themselves and the society may not get help as quick as possible.

From an education perspective, several elements of UK education acts as a barrier to the efforts of eliminating or reducing youth offending. First, as (13) argues, children in the youth criminal justice system have limited access to education. Normally, children who are unable to maintain law and order have poor school attendance at an early age, and subsequently play truants as they grow older (Gray, 2019). Moreover, according to Duke et al (2020), some of them have learning difficulties and lack the basic numeric or literacy skills to excel in school.

But the link between lack of education and child offending is well established. Both nursery and primary school play a significant role in ensuring that the children get into the habit of school attendance and that those habits are reinforced with constant monitoring from parents – so that any deviant behaviour is referred for social care as soon as possible. However, in some YOTs such as Cheshire West, Gateshead, Warrington, and Halton, this has been their object of focus, and social workers have been employed with the specific responsibility of coordinating with education providers to ensure that children find school placement and that any deviant behaviour is dealt with early enough (Cunneen et al, 2018). However, in other areas, there has not been enough effort to ensure that children and the youth are sufficiently engaged in schools, training institutions and colleges.

Nonetheless, policy reports also indicate the availability of greater flexibility in the delivery of youth offending services. First, Duke et al (2020) argued that criminal response alone cannot help to deal with youth offending. Rather, the children who remain within the system require a wide range of services to help them change their behaviour and grow into successful adults. However, the current youth criminal justice system lacks the freedom to innovate and develop effective models of service delivery, and therefore they are not able to provide a more tailored and coordinated response to the needs of this smaller group of offenders. As Daykin et al (2017) argued, after being creative with fund allocations to these agencies, the agencies must be allowed to be creative with the utilization of the money so that the increasing number of youth within the criminal justice system are well-taken care of through effective interaction with the local authorities.

Whereas, as Edwards (2017) observes, some local authorities acknowledge the importance of the 1998 Act in requiring a multi-agency approach to youth offending, there is a need to reform the currently existing arrangements from many local authorities that feel limited by the YOT from acting ambitiously a creatively with the children. For instance, Duke et al (2020) pointed out the need to set local authorities free to integrate the youth offending services with their family, children, mental and youth health provision while working differently with health, education, housing and social care services. According to Staines (2017), such a different approach has led to creative and flexible ways of delivering care and support to vulnerable children and families. Thus, when creating trusts, local authorities should include youth offending as part of these trusts.

Services Available to Reduce or Prevent Youth Crime and Deviance

The UK government have implemented various strategies to reduce or prevent youth crime and deviance. However, a review of these strategies reveals that they predominantly cut across the individual, school, peer group, family and community domains, creating a complex landscape of direct prevention interventions, enforcement measures and diversionary strategies. However, in the interest of brevity and clarity, this report will only focus on the direct prevention initiatives or services, which include individual and family – centred services, school-focused intervention and community/ neighbourhood – focused services.

As earlier mentioned, most of the youth offending behaviour emanates from individual or family level characteristics, reflecting the need for an early emphasis on interventions that have worked both in the UK and other countries. Consequently, a variety of transported services have been implemented in the UK from the US, including the Multi-systemic therapy (MST), Multi-dimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT). All these therapies originate from the US where they have been extensively applied and showed positive results. Whereas evaluation studies are still being carried out on them, evidence from Daykin et al (2017) show they work in reducing youth offending. For instance, Daykin et al (2017) noted that the MST has been implemented in at least 10 sites across England since 2010 targeting at least 700 families. On the other hand, the FFT was first utilized in the UK in 2007, with the pilot randomized control trial conducted in Brighton.

The other multimodal program that has been successful in addressing the issue of child offending is the Persistent Young Offender Project (PYOP), which was first rolled out in Portsmouth. According to Edwards (2017), PYOP involves anger management and training on group work on anti-social behavior, interpersonal skills, victim awareness, one-on-one mentoring. Duke et al (2020) acknowledged that PYOP aligns with international evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of child mentoring, training, non-academic activities, cognitive-behavioural therapy in expressing the child’s competencies in other areas. An evaluation of the PYOP initiative revealed a reduction in police charges while some of the offenders ceased reoffending and entirely improved their educational engagements. It also helped in solving the offenders’ personal and emotional problems.

Apart from the PYOP program, the other program that has gained tremendous success in the UK is the Intensive Supervision and Support Programmes (ISSPs), which was developed to assist persistent young offenders as a community-based approach rather than custodial approach. According to Duke et al (2020), it uses a multimodal approach similar to PYOP, by including individual skill building, family conferences, and repatriation opportunities. It is meant to bring structure to the young person’s life, to ensure they come into terms with their offences and address the underlying cause of the offending behaviour while putting in place structures that would prevent them from engaging in similar offences in future. According to Staines (2017), research evaluation into the effectiveness of ISSP have shown fair success, even though inconclusive results have been realised.

Apart from the family and individual-based interventions, school-based interventions have also been implemented across the UK to address the issue of youth offending. But, according to Duke et al (2020), there are only a few explicitly focused school-based interventions in the UK, more of them adopting universal approaches as opposed to targeted approaches. For example, the Safer School Partnerships (SSPs) was introduced several years ago to address behavioural issues such as anti-social behaviour, bullying and general offending behaviour in schools (Gray, 2019). The SSPs adopt a whole-school approach to discipline and behaviour and involves support workers to reduce victimization, antisocial behaviour, criminality and promote safety.

SSPs are implemented by the school authority by creating a suitable school environment through effective decision-making. It taps into the help of the wider community (in this case the local police). For example, thereof the SSP projects funded by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) have an assigned and fully operational police officer and a supporting staff located in every school. While they have been considered effective, the lack of safety and offending data in schools limits the extent to which the SSP programs can be evaluated, especially with regards to their ability to reduce offending and anti-social behaviour. Meanwhile, in a study by Bowles, Garcia Reyes & Pradiptyo (2005) schools that participated in the SSP initiative had decreased rates of truancy and exclusions. Furthermore, the cost-effective analysis of SSP carried out by the study revealed a positive net benefit of the program.

In conclusion, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of crime and crime deviance among the youth in England by evaluating the theoretical perspectives of criminal behaviour, exploring the current state of youth criminal justice system in the UK and the various services or interventions implemented in the UK to address the problem of child defiance. Some of the most prominent theories of crime and deviance include the psychological approaches, psychodynamic theory, cognitive theory, and the learning theory. Regarding the state of UK’s criminal justice system, the study has revealed that the local authorities are not as free as they need to be to integrate the youth offending services into the family, children, mental and youth health provision as well as the freedom they need to develop creative and flexible ways of delivering care and support to the vulnerable children and families. Lastly, MST, FFT, PYOP, and SSPs are some of the most effective services implemented in the UK to address the issue of youth offending.

Taylor, C., 2016. Review of the youth justice system in England and Wales.

Blakeman, I., 2011. The youth justice system of England and Wales. UNAFEI Resource Material Series, 78, pp.80-93.

Cunneen, C., Goldson, B. and Russell, S., 2018. Human rights and youth justice reform in England and Wales: A systemic analysis. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(4), pp.405-430.

Duke, K., Thom, B. and Gleeson, H., 2020. Framing ‘drug prevention’for young people in contact with the criminal justice system in England: views from practitioners in the field. Journal of Youth Studies, 23(4), pp.511-529.

Gray, P., 2019. ‘Rights-Based’and ‘Children and Young People First’Approaches to Youth Justice. In The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Routledge.

Cunneen, C., 2020. Youth justice and racialization: Comparative reflections. Theoretical Criminology, 24(3), pp.521-539.

Haines, K. and Case, S., 2018. The future of youth justice. Youth justice, 18(2), pp.131-148.

Barn, R., Feilzer, M. and Hardwick, N., 2018. Black and minority ethnic boys and custody in England and Wales: Understanding subjective experiences through an analysis of official data. Social Sciences, 7(11), p.226.

Hampson, K.S., 2018. Desistance approaches in youth justice–the next passing fad or a sea-change for the positive?. Youth justice, 18(1), pp.18-33.

Daykin, N., De Viggiani, N., Moriarty, Y. and Pilkington, P., 2017. Music‐making for health and wellbeing in youth justice settings: Mediated affordances and the impact of context and social relations. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(6), pp.941-958.

Abrams, L.S., Jordan, S.P. and Montero, L.A., 2018. What is a juvenile? A cross-national comparison of youth justice systems. Youth justice, 18(2), pp.111-130.

Bateman, T. and Wigzell, A., 2020. Exploring recent trends in youth justice reconvictions: a challenge to the complexity thesis. Youth Justice, 20(3), pp.252-271.

Edwards, J., 2017. A just system? How punitive youth justice systems increase the risk of crime. Children Australia, 42(4), pp.233-239.

Smith, R. and Gray, P., 2019. The changing shape of youth justice: Models of practice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(5), pp.554-571.

Staines, J., 2017. Looked after children and youth justice: a response to recent reviews. Safer Communities.

Ugwudike, P. and Morgan, G., 2019. Bridging the gap between research and frontline youth justice practice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(2), pp.232-253.

Matthews, S., Schiraldi, V. and Chester, L., 2018. Youth justice in Europe: Experience of Germany, the Netherlands, and Croatia in providing developmentally appropriate responses to emerging adults in the criminal justice system. Justice Evaluation Journal, 1(1), pp.59-81.

Bateman, T., 2020. The state of youth justice 2020: an overview of trends and developments.

Baidawi, S., 2020. Crossover children: Examining initial criminal justice system contact among child protection-involved youth. Australian Social Work, 73(3), pp.280-295.

Lewis, S., Crawford, A. and Traynor, P., 2017. Nipping Crime in the Bud? The Use of Antisocial Behaviour Interventions with Young People in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), pp.1230-1248.

Hill, S.A., Mitchell, P. and Leipold, A., 2017. Transfers of mentally disordered adolescents from custodial settings to psychiatric hospital in England and Wales 2004–2014. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(1), pp.1-9.

Johns, D.F., Williams, K. and Haines, K., 2017. Ecological youth justice: Understanding the social ecology of young people’s prolific offending. Youth justice, 17(1), pp.3-21.

Theoretical Perspective of Crime and Deviance

Akers, R.L. and Jennings, W.G., 2019. The social learning theory of crime and deviance. In Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 113-129). Springer, Cham.

Ying, T., Wen, J. and Shan, H., 2019. Is cannabis tourism deviant? A theoretical perspective. Tourism Review International, 23(1-2), pp.71-77.

Vazsonyi, A.T., Mikuška, J. and Kelley, E.L., 2017. It's time: A meta-analysis on the self-control-deviance link. Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, pp.48-63.

Chan, T.K., Cheung, C.M. and Wong, R.Y., 2019. Cyberbullying on social networking sites: the crime opportunity and affordance perspectives. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(2), pp.574-609.

Nicholson, J. and Higgins, G.E., 2017. Social structure social learning theory: Preventing crime and violence. In Preventing crime and violence (pp. 11-20). Springer, Cham.

Etuk, G.R. and Nnam, M.U., 2018. Predictors and risk factors of armed robbery victimisation in Nigeria: An integrated theoretical perspective. European Scienfific Journal, 14(29), pp.1-15.

Crank, B.R., 2018. Accepting deviant identities: the impact of self-labeling on intentions to desist from crime. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(2), pp.155-172.

Hayward, K. and Smith, O., 2017. Crime and consumer culture. The Oxford handbook of criminology, pp.306-328.

Lugosi, P., 2019. Deviance, deviant behaviour and hospitality management: Sources, forms and drivers. Tourism Management, 74, pp.81-98.

Brown, S.E. and Sefiha, O. eds., 2017. Routledge handbook on deviance. Routledge.

Dig deeper into Rehabilitation is more effective than harsh punishments with our selection of articles.

Baron, S.W., 2017. Street youth, social schemas, and crime. criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(12), pp.1620-1638.

Gottschalk, P., 2020. Theory of convenience: Determinants of white-collar crime intention. Deviant Behavior, 41(11), pp.1431-1439.

Raymen, T. and Smith, O. eds., 2019. Deviant leisure: Criminological perspectives on leisure and harm. Springer Nature.

Wilcox, P. and Cullen, F.T., 2018. Situational opportunity theories of crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, pp.123-148.

Gottschalk, P., 2017. Organizational opportunity and deviant behavior: Convenience in white-collar crime. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Schroeder, R.D., Broadus, E.J. and Bradley, C., 2018. Religiosity and crime revisited: Accounting for non-believers. Deviant Behavior, 39(5), pp.632-647.