Gang Crime

New Labour youth justice policy and practice over the past decades have been deep-rooted in an ideological framework. That incorporates criminological theoretical both neo-liberal approaches in regarding young people who commit offences, that has become responsibility for the management of risk, and less tolerant of indiscipline more overtly in society (Muncie, 2008). Likewise neo-conservative ideologies that involves of left realisation of policy and reintegrative shaming. Whereby the offending activities of the individual are shamed with the punishment that suit the crime, however at the same time take in consideration the circumstances whereby the individual commit the offence (Hopkins Burke, 2008). Increasingly, in United Kingdom there have been a culture of fear which surrounding the youths in society influences in part by cases such as the murder of two year old James Bulger committed by ten year olds Robert Thompson and Jon Venables in 1992 as the contributing factors (Pitts,2001).

The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.

Societies tend to view the youth as the future and hope of a nation. To a certain extent, societies observe the behaviours and potential of the young people to ‘estimate’ the political and socio-economic future of a nation. When there is what societies view as a deviance from the norm when in it comes to young people – often there is what is viewed as a ‘moral panic’. I will be looking at the ‘moral panic’ of youth crime or juvenile delinquency, the role of its ‘moral

This essay seeks to discuss the statement of "The criminal justice system is failing children and young offenders in the UK" by considering both whether our justice system is delivering the overhaul of the youth justice systems aims of

Jones (2001) observed that the New Labour (YJB) policies were suppressing all youth justice through knowledge and practices however observes a widespread challenge from scholar and practitioners (Hopkin-Burke 2008). On the other hand, they were concerned that youth justice practitioners although there had experiences and expertise. Working with young offenders have been disillusioned and alienated them at a disadvantage due to the speed within the legislation changes for examples Muncie 1995 cited Hopkin-

Juvenile or youth crime has become a controversial issue in the politics of Canada because of the huge disagreements regarding how the youths should be treated in the criminal system despite of the fact that youth crime in the country is lamentable. The controversy is mainly centered on the best and most suitable approach taken to handle the youth criminals and the severity of the punishment that should be given (Makarenko, 2007). In addition to generating concerns and dominating Canada politics, youth crime has also attracted huge concerns by many Canadians, especially violent youth crime. According to some statistics, youth crime has continued to increase despite reports by the police that offenses committed by people between 12 and 17 years have declined. In 2010, the overall juvenile crime rate declined by 7 percent relative to 2009 while violent crime dropped by 3 percent within the same period. The Youth Criminal Justice Act has contributed to numerous changes in youth justice in Canada including decrease in the rate of youth crime, changes in the way the society responds to young people, and development of humane and respectful ways of dealing with the youth.

This journal talks about the up to date political rhetoric and societies opinion on the topic of youth crime. In the article it states two critical societal gauges, the first being social order,” a society based on a persuasive and binding morality”, therefore the most important threat is disorder (Hartnagel, 2004, pp. 358). Next in order is justice; “a society based on a fair and equitable distribution of power, wealth, prestige and privilege minority (Hartnagel, 2004, pp.358). These two dialogues vary with whether order with justice or justice with order should be the controlling guideline. The journal talked about a murder case that had a negative impact on the public and a few politicians requested a change in the Youth Offenders Act (Hartnagel,

The criminal construction of youth is especially problematic for young people who are male, non-English and hang around in groups (Wilson Rose & Colvin 2010). From the construction of a criminal youth the government creates legislation to reduce the societal fear of crime, such as zero tolerance legislation designed to promote preventative policing through profiling techniques that target minor offences. One such legislation can be seen through Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 No 103 (LEPRA) (New South Wales Government 2013), section 197.1(b) where a person is issued a direction by a police officer, if the police officer believes that the behaviour constitutes intimidation or is likely to cause fear. White (2015) claims that the construction of youth as criminal and the subsequent legislation marginalises young people, especially Indigenous, and fosters antisocial behaviour and the feeling of an unjust system. Moreover, the current Neo-liberal ideology asserts that everyone is responsible for their own life path, but it ignores the structural factors that limit opportunities for many young people (Evens 2006). As such, Copeland (2008), White (2015) and Iveson (2009) claim that with the privatisation of public space and the lack of socioeconomic power of young people, creates and environment that prevent young people from transitioning into adults by labelling them as dangerous and disruptive if they make any mistakes in

Matthews et al., Rogers & Coaffee, and Minton (cited in Pickering et al. 2012) exemplified that young people are driven out of shopping malls, some of their recreational activities were barred, and officers were geared up in towns to deter and disperse them. These repressive and punitive interventions which severely infringe on young people’s liberty and their human rights, demonstrate that the law and law enforcers are ‘othering’ young people by excluding them in public spaces and conceptualising them as a threat to the community (Deuchar 2010; Pickering et al. 2012).

When thinking about youth crime do you envision a country with a high rate of young offenders, gang activity and re-offending? Or do you envision a country with a significant increase of young offenders either being successfully reintegrated into society, or helped by a community when seeking forgiveness for a minor offence that they have committed? Since the passing of Bill C-7 or the Youth Criminal Justice Act on February 4, 2002 by the House of Commons, many significant improvements have been made in Canada’s youth criminal justice system on how to handle and care for young offenders. Some of the reasons why Bill C-7 was passed in Canada was because the bill before it, Young Offenders Act, had many problems and suffered large amounts

“The number of under-18s convicted or cautioned over violent offences rose from 17,590 to 24,102 - an increase of 37 per cent” Telegraph, Leapmen. Youth crime has increased drastically over the years as it can be seen from the statistics given above in 2008 on the telegraph newspaper. Youth crime has been an issue for a long time now; however it is becoming a major issue as it is only getting worse with how many youngsters are committing crime as well as the seriousness of the youth crimes is increasing. Criminologists as well as sociologists try to find out the main reason behind children turning to crime and have managed to come up with a few theories as well as good reasons to why many children would consider committing crime. (Source

An alternative to channeling youth into a lifetime of criminal behavior by taking into account the different developmental needs of youth and the interests of society should remain the priority. Retaining youth in prisons will actually harm the public as opposed to if youth were placed in more community-based programs or smaller facilities near the youth’s community. When adolescence are placed in prison, their chances of avoiding the system later in life decrease drastically. Youth become subject to becoming repeat offenders. In a study conducted by Anna Aizer of Brown University and Joseph Doyle, Jr. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, they were able to pinpoint the effects of adolescents who found themselves in youth prisons. Youth who were incarcerated were less likely to finish their education and more likely to become repeat offenders committing homicide, violent crime, property crime and drug crimes. Adolescence will find themselves stuck in this ‘revolving door’ in the justice system, which may be exceptionally challenging to get out

Since 2010/11, there have been 51% fewer young people coming into the Youth Justice System and 40% fewer young people coming into custody. However, the re offending rates have increased within time. On the positive side, the number of young people sentenced in England and Wales in 2013/14 has fallen by 23% in the last year (Youth Justice Board 2014). According to Marco (2013), the reason as to why crime rates have fallen is due to the increased spending on policing resources and education. Having said that, as the economy struggles to emerge from recession, and as police budgets are curtailed, society can expect crime rates to level out and potentially rise. With this in mind, offense such as burglary in particular has had a drastic fall over the past few years. Importantly, some argue that this is due to the improvements in security, particularly modern systems to prevent vehicle intrusion, have significantly reduced the opportunities for committing crime. Others insist that imprisonment, policing or demographic factors play the most important role. Last but not least, the following essay sheds light into explaining the criminal behavior of young offenders. Additionally, the factors and causation will also be identified, as well as relating various different relevant academic theories in relation to explaining the criminal behavior of young offenders. Another key thing to remember, theoretical perspective transform data into understanding, explanation and steps for

Since 1995, a year after the YOA came into effect; all areas of offences have increased. This would included all persons ages 17 and under or less charged with an offence that was dealt with informally by the police. The total of all offence in 1985 was at 188,958 and by the year 1989 it had jumped to 225, 766 so an increase of 36,808 in just 4 years. A big suprise was in the rise in numbers of the Drug offence. In 1985, it was at 4,290 and in 1986 it jumped up to 4,767, but by the year 1989 it was at 4,253. In that 5 year period it decreased by 43 but at least it is a start in one area (Ruffo, 4,1994). But it is not really young people committing the crimes because a

Young offenders are risking greater ‘pain’ such as lengthy imprisonment or large fines, for dangerous offences like car theft, or home invasions. This reckless ignorance of potential outcomes, is not taken into perspective when looking at it from a classical perspective. The inability to understand the recklessness and lack of rationality in Melbourne’s youth, is a key weakness and limitation of Classical criminology.