Youth crime and youth justice

Question 1

When did the treatment of children begin to vary from the treatment of adults?

Answer 1

In the 18th century, charities began to treat them differently.

Question 2

What did the Royal Philanthropic society that opened in 1792 aim to do?

Answer 2

Prevent the transportation of children.

Question 3

What did the Royal Philanthropic society do in 1797?

Answer 3

Started a juvenile resettlement scheme.

Question 4

Why did separate prisons/ ships introduce for juvenile offenders close in 1846?

Answer 4

They were seen as too harsh and cruel.

Question 5

What year did the Pankhurst prison for juveniles open, and when was it re-rolled into a prison for adults?

Answer 5

1838 it was set up for juveniles and in 1864 it was re-rolled for adults.

Question 6

Outline the 1847 Juvilies offenders act:

Answer 6

This act made the distinguishment between children and adults in terms of where their trials could take place. Those under 14 years old were heard in magistrates courts (lower tier)

Question 7

Outline the 1854 reformatory school act:

Answer 7

This act was also known as The Youthful Offenders Act. It allowed for the certification of voluntary reformatory schools. This strategy to deal with convicted juveniles had been tried out with success prior to the 1850s.

Reformatory school is an alternative to prisons.

Question 8

Outline the 1901 Youthful offenders act:

Answer 8

This act permits remand (Custody) homes for children who are awaiting trial. This is an alternative to prisons

Question 9

When was the first borstal institution opened and what consisted of the regime?

Answer 9

1902- This was for young males in the kent area, and the institution had a strict regime of:

• Physical drill.
• Training.
• Education.

Question 10

When was it recognized that a separate youth justice ‘system’ began?

Answer 10

1907- Probation of offenders act- established the probation service- initially aimed at replacing punishment for young offenders.

Question 11

What was one of the clearest moves towards a welfare perspective for youth offenders?

Answer 11

1993- The children and young persons act- It abolished the death penalty for, under 18-year-olds, raised the age of criminal responsibility to 8 years old, and replaced reformatories and industrial schools.

Question 12

When was the most overly welfarist period for youth justice in E&W?

Answer 12

After the first world war until the 1990s.

Question 13

When was it made illegal to send under 18 years old to prison?

Answer 13

In 1948

Question 14

Outline the 1988 Criminal justice act:

Answer 14

This act restricted the use of custody for children and provided specified activities as a statutory alternative for custody.
Additionally, youth custody centres & detention centres were combined into youth offender institutions (YOIs) for offenders bellow 21.

This act was quickly followed by the 1989 Children’s act, which abolished care and supervision orders in criminal justice proceedings.

Question 15

What did the 1993 Criminal justice act do?

Answer 15

It began to reverse the 1991 act and began to focus more on punitive & a return to justice solutions over welfare. Tougher sentencing was brought in.

Question 16

Outline the 1994 Criminal justice and public order act:

Answer 16

This increased the offences for which young people could be committed to the crown court and effectively into the adult system. The length of potential custody doubled and youth courts could use new custodial sentences for 12-14-year-old persistent offenders.

Question 17

What did the Misspent Youth Justice report published in 1996 criticize?

Answer 17

it criticized the youth justice system as too costly, insufficient, and ineffective.

Question 18

What did the 1997- labor approach emphasize?

Answer 18

A tough on crime approach. No more excuses. The White paper emphasized and impacted moving youth justice agenda towards young offenders taking more responsibility. This is essentially the end of Parens Partriae in E&W.

Question 19

What is parens patriae?

Answer 19

The power of the state to act as guardian for those who are unable to care for themselves, such as children or disabled individuals.

Question 20

What did the 1998 Crime and disorder act introduce?

Answer 20

It aimed to prevent offending and re-offending. It introduced things such as ASBOs.

Question 21

What did the youth justice board in 2000 do?

Answer 21

• Issued the first national standard for youth justice.
  This outlined the minimum level of service provision and crucially allowed government funding to be conditional.
• Sentences of four months to 24 months from 2000 were to be carried out half in jail, and the other half on community license.
• At the same time there was the introduction of Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs). These were made in response to demands from deprived areas to reduce youth crime and anti-social behavior amongst young people aged 8- 17 years old in their area.

Question 22

What did YIPs provide?

Answer 22

Somewhere inclusive and safe for young people to go.

Question 23

What programme was piloted in 2001, as a robust community alternative for persistent offenders, in an attempt to balance the demands of justice (via retribution). This was rolled out nationally in 2003.

Answer 23

The intense supervision and surveillance programme (ISSP).

Question 24

What did Judge Mumby rule in 2002?

Answer 24

Judge Mumby ruled that children in custody should receive the same mainstream treatment/ services that children in the community under the 1989 human rights and legislation act.

Question 25

In 2004 what did the childrens act extend?

Answer 25

The welfare role of youth justice custodial institutions by including them in the same safeguarding duties as non-justice children’s organizations.

Question 26

What were the criticisms of the government’s response to the Taylor report?

Answer 26

-Bateman (2017, p.3) argues that there is no rationale provided by the MOJ for the explicit exclusion of the following in terms of reference:

1. Age of criminal responsibility.
2. Treatment of children in courts.
3. The youth sentencing framework.

• The prison service was already failing and was given the responsibility of some of the most vulnerable children in society.
• Progress of secure schools has been very slow.
• The Taylor report did effectively weaken the YJBs control over those locally YOTs & local authorities that wanted to operate in a ‘children first, offender second’ approach.

Question 27

List the structure of hierarchy for youth justice services:

Answer 27

1. Parliament.
2. Secretary of state for justice.
3. Youth Justice board.
4. Youth offending teams.
5. Custody providers.
6. Inspectorates.

Question 28

What is the role of secretary state for justice?

Answer 28

• Set the standard for the youth justice services.

- Direct youth justice boards.

Question 29

What are the roles of the youth offending teams?

Answer 29

• Co-ordinate the provision of youth justice services for all in the local authority who need them.
• YOT is accountable to the local authorities.

Question 30

What are custody providers?

Answer 30

Those who are responsible for delivering custodial services to children.

Question 31

Give two examples of custody providers:

Answer 31

1. YOI =Youth offending institutions.

2. STC’s = Secure training centers.

Question 32

What are inspectorates?

Answer 32

Those who inspect/ investigate youth justice services & advise local authorities.

Question 33

Give 5 examples of Inspectorates:

Answer 33

1. HMI Prison
2. HMI probation.
3. Ofsted.
4. IMBs
5. reg 44 visitors

Question 34

What is the age of criminal accountability in E&W?

Answer 34

10

Question 35

Between what ages are sentences restricted?

Answer 35

10-17 years old.

Question 36

What mitigating factors could be used to defend children in court?

Answer 36

1. Age.

2. Immaturity.

Question 37

From the HM Inspectorate report of prisons, what did it show in relation to approaches to dealing with young offenders?

Answer 37

This report found that only 1/3rd of prisons have specific approaches to dealing with young adults and lack specific training, interventions, and additional resources.

Question 38

What were the statistics in March 2017 of young people and arrest rates? (Answer in %)

Answer 38

It went from 39% to 20% in terms of overall arrests.

Question 39

Has youth involvement in crime increased or decreased?

Answer 39

It has decreased prominently in the last decade.

Question 40

Do young people make up a small or large % of victims?

Answer 40

Small. Usually around 10%

Question 41

Outline YIPs:

Answer 41

• Introduced in 2002.
• Made for 8-17-year-olds.
• Targeted the most deprived and high risk/ crime neighborhoods.
• it aimed to reduce crime through interventions.

Question 42

Outline Youth Inclusion and support pannels:

Answer 42

• Introduced in 2003.
• Made to prevent anti-social behavior.
• Participation is voluntary.
• For ages 8-13 years old.
• Criticism: Pre-emptive.

Question 43

What year was the YJB established?

Answer 43

1998.

Question 44

What was the Taylor review in 2016? What did it state?

Answer 44

• It called for a more devolved youth justice system.
• Local authorities should be able to use their own assessment systems, not those prescribed by the YJB.
• Maintain existing multi-agency teams.
• Take child custody out of justice control.