Essay Example on CDA 1998: Reforming UK's Failing Youth Justice System

Introduction

The establishment of the Crime and Disorder Act in 1998 (CDA 1998) led to various changes in the Youth Justice System (Arnull, 2013). The act is seen to have reform what the governments regarded to be a failing Youth Justice System. It fundamentally improved the principles and philosophies which the Youth Justice System based on (Goldson, 2019). Through the act, some of the ineffective restorative measures were abandoned (Pitts, 2013). For instance, decarceration, diversion, and decriminalization were all changed in favour of early intervention; the new development included strengthening the responsibility of parents and making young offenders responsible for their actions (Goldson, 2019; (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015). After the implementation of the Crime and Disorder Act in 1998, young people and children could take the responsibility or consequences of their offending (Goldson, 2019). Initially, there was a little critical commentary of these developments; however, more commentators have recently raised concerns over the practical and ethical implications of the new form of the youth justice system (Arnull, 2013). This paper critically explores the changes that have been brought by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, specifically in the youth justice system. It outlines the political critique of the old youth justice system and the main changes to the youth justice system incorporated in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A Critique of Youth Justice before the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

There was an excuse within the Youth Justice system. The authorities were implying that restorative measures that existed within the Youth Justice system were challenging and could not help youth behaviors due to their social circumstances (Arnull, 2013). They also said that the system dealing with youth crime was expensive and inefficient; therefore, little was done to deal with juvenile nuisance efficiently. Before the Criminal Justice, Public Order Act in 1994 was considered as one of the most progressive periods in juvenile justice (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015). During that period, most of the practices in the Youth Justice System were underpinned by the principles and philosophies of diversion, decriminalisation, and decarceration. Therefore, the successful revolution in the Youth Justice can come as a result of the convergence of some influences that may lead to a consensus on diverting young individuals or children from the Criminal activities and reducing the use of custody for children involved in criminal actions (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015).

The papers like Tackling Youth Crime (A Consultation Paper 1997) and Misspent Youth (1996) reported that the Youth Justice System lacked credibility and clear objectives. From the report, it was noted that the system of repeat cautioning and imprisonment was not functioning, the youth court system was also found to be too cumbersome, and re-offending continued while young suspects were on bail (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015). Again, community intervention programs aimed at improving the behaviour of young offenders were seen to be ineffective (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015). The report also discovered that the system of custodial facilities was disjointed and that a national strategic direction was absent (Arnull, 2013). Through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, these challenges were addressed; the New Labour in the act was meant to assist the Youth Justice System in eradicating juvenile crimes. It was aimed at handling the failings in the youth justice system. The act was also implemented to get strict with young offenders; a measure that was thought could help reduce the problem of youths and crimes committed by juveniles.

Youth Justice

The New Labour made tackling youth crime a high priority. Earlier before the 1997 general election, it was reported that about 70% of the crimes were committed by mostly young boys (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015). It was also noted that most of them had begun offending in their teens (Bateman, 2017). However, there is inadequate or reliable official statistics to show whether youth crime is increasing or decreasing (Pitts, 2013). The 2003 crime and justice survey found that most of the teens grow out of crime and that a small minority of the most prolific offenders are responsible for the most crime (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015). The survey also reported that most offenders give up or abandon criminal activities without any contact with the police or court trial; a third of the juveniles get arrested; however, only 1% of offenses could end in a court trial (Pitts, 2013). The findings of this 2003 crime and justice survey were later reinforced in January 2005 by Home Office research that pointed out a rise in criminality among teenagers with a quarter of young men aged 14 to 17 classified as severe or prolific offenders (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015).

The United Kingdom governments have set to handle youth crime in various ways; this includes restricting young people from involving in criminal activities, providing more sentencing options for the courts, and focusing sentencing on limiting repeat offending (Arnull, 2013). Reforming the youth justice was seen to have started with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This act required local councils to establish offending youth teams (Yots), which would collectively include teachers, the police, social services, the NHS, and probation services. The main aim was to handle the underlying causes of youth crimes, including family problems or drugs (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015).

However, most of these measures have not been achieved. In April 2000, a range of new sentencing options for young offenders was introduced in England and Wales; this was to enable the police and magistrates to impose penalties according to the severity of the crime (Hoyle, & Rosenblatt, 2016). Despite the new sentencing options, the final option remained to be imprisonment or custodial sentences, thus increasing the number of young individuals in custody (Arnull, 2013). In 2004, more than 6,000 children were imprisoned, the rise in the number raised concerns among different stakeholders and the public as a whole (Pitts, 2013; (Hoyle, & Rosenblatt, 2016). The children's charities and penal reformers condemned the abrupt increase in the number of young individuals in prison; they also questioned the conditions in which the children were held in jail (Arnull, 2013). Formal restraints were applied about 11,593 times; unfortunately, twenty-seven children were reported to have died in custody within five years (Pitts, 2013). Severe anxieties and concerns about conditions in youth jails were further increased with the death of a 19-year-old Zahid Mubarek, who was murdered by his racist, psychopathic cellmate at Feltham young offenders' institution in March 2000 (Allen, 2015; Bateman, 2017).

New Labour government

Due to the increased concerns about conditions in youth jails, the authorities introduced various measures in the field of youth justice; they created the Youth Offending Teams as was required by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Bateman, 2017). They also restructured the non-custodial penalties accessible to the youth court; this was evident in the elements of restorative justice (Allen, 2015). In addition, the United Kingdom authorities have also set up the Youth Justice Board, all aided to assist in eradicating crimes committed by young individuals and children (Bateman, 2017). These measures have been seen to strengthen the community programs in some considerably innovative efforts to reduce offending (Pitts, 2013). The Labour government actively pursued a campaign against anti-social behaviour; this was evident to be virtually invented by New Labour (Bateman, 2017). Despite these developments by the New Labour approach, some of these measures have just increased the number of young individuals that are under 15 being sentenced to custody (Paterson et al., 2019). The recent report pointed out that the number of 15 to 17-year-olds in prison is rapidly increasing over the years; therefore, there is a need for better measures that would tackle or prevent young individuals or children from committing crimes (Goldson, & Muncie, 2015).

The use of full force of the criminal law to young individuals and children has long been held to be controversial. In the United Kingdom, the age at which children take responsibility for their crime is ten (England and Wales) (Arnull, 2013). Although there are new attempts to decriminalize youth crime or to let it into the hands of youth workers and social workers or the hands of psychologists but not the hands of police, lawyers, and magistrates, these attempts have been firmly resisted and criticized by the legal establishment and the probation service (Arnull, 2013). Criminologists had also criticized this welfarism. They argued that behind the talk of kindness and humanitarianism, there is a denial of legal rights that could encourage more significant state intervention (Crawford, & Newburn, 2013). They also insisted that young women and young children, in particular, might be at higher risk than young men since stubborn girls could find themselves committed to local authority residential care without actually having committed any offenses. Again, the principle that young individuals and children under a certain age are incapable of evil (doli incapax) has been criticized by both major political parties since the mid-1990s (Bateman, 2017).

Enthusiastic adoption of the New Public Managerialism as a way that the public sector could reform along cost-effective lines has been seen as one of the distinctive features of the New Labour project (Bateman, 2017). Shortly before the implementation of the New Labour system, the highly prominent Audit Commission published in 1996 a report (Misspent Youth) was very critical of the youth justice system and concluded that it was expensive and inefficient (Paterson et al., 2019). Once in government, the Home Office published a White Paper in November 1997, No More Excuses, which promised to mend the Youth Justice system radically, this is what led to the implementation of Crime and Disorder Act 1998(Crawford, & Newburn, 2013; Paterson et al., 2019). This act brought some changes in the youth justice system, including Anti-Social Behaviour and Prisoners and Rights.

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders

Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) were first founded by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; it was then amended in the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, respectively (France, 2016). It incorporated civil order that could be executed by the local authority, the police, and several other agencies on any individual over ten years old who have involved themselves with criminal activities. It also applied to individuals whose behaviour is thought likely to provoke distress, alarm, or harassment (France, 2016).

The most problematic or controversial aspect of the Anti-social behaviour orders was that the violation of this civil order is punishable by up to five years imprisonment, even when the initial offense was non-imprisonable. There had been an estimate of nearly 42% of Anti-social behaviour orders made were against juveniles breached, and 46% of those breaches faced a custodial sentence(France, 2016). Various concerns have been raised over the improper use of Anti-social behaviour orders to young people with behavioural and mental disorders (France, 2016). A study on Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) reported that nearly 35% of children under the age of 17 were diagnosed with a learning difficulty or a mental health disorder (France, 2016).

The Modern Prison

The modern prison was established in the late 18th century...