New Labour Youth Justice Case Study

The relevant legislation that has been implemented, (Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987), has addressed issues that young people face. However, rights for young people still need to be addressed. Doli Incapax, The Children’s Court and Legal are measures taken to protect young offenders in regards to the criminal justice system. Ensuring that the child’s rights are protected there have been legislations passed to guarantee the enforceability of this alternative methods. Young people are treated differently to adults in the criminal justice system for three major reasons. They are; they prevent children and young people from being exploited, protect them from making uniformed decisions and protect others from being disadvantaged by dealing with a person that is a

Restorative vs. Retributive Justice Name Institution Date The movie ‘Sleepers’ describes the lives of four boys, Tommy, Michael, Shakes, and Johnny. In an attempt to steal a hot dog cart, the cart rolls down the street almost killing an elderly man. The four boys are taken to a collective center, Wilkinson Home for Boys.

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.

Youth crime is a growing epidemic that affects most teenagers at one point in their life. There is no question in society to whether or not youths are committing crimes. It has been shown that since 1986 to 1998 violent crime committed by youth jumped approximately 120% (CITE). The most controversial debate in Canadian history would have to be about the Young Offenders Act (YOA). In 1982, Parliament passed the Young Offenders Act (YOA). Effective since 1984, the Young Offenders Act replaced the most recent version of the Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA). The Young Offenders Act’s purpose was to shift from a social welfare approach to making youth take responsibility for their actions. It also addressed concerns that the paternalistic

The overwhelming majority of juveniles are involved in impulsive or risky, even delinquent behaviors during their teenage years. However, the majority go on to become very productive citizens who do not commit crimes. In order for this to continue the government established the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which gives young offenders a chance to better themselves, and. By doing so, the YCJA helps teach youth that their actions are unacceptable and the punishments imposed are lesser then an adult. Through the analysis of their unacceptable actions, lesser punishments and a better future, it is clear that YCJA is highly effective at giving youth a better chance in society.

There is debate whether youth crime is really a problem to society or just an issue that is constructed by society. It is argued that media has influenced society’s views on this matter by categorising young people as ‘folk devils’ (Banks, 2013). Certain groups, episodes and people that pose a threat to society’s values is when a moral panic takes place (Cohen, 1972). For example, this can be seen nowadays when there is no actual threat but old people get intimidated when they see large groups of young people hanging about on streets. These influences led to policy change, increasing the level of social control. This means that youth crime may be perceived as a moral panic rather than an actual problem.

The legal definition of crime is “an act of violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing it must have intended to do so and must have done so without legally acceptable defence or justification” (Walsh & Hemmens 2008:2). Alternatively, deviance is any social behaviour which departs from that regarded as ‘normal’ or socially acceptable within a society or social context (Jary & Jary 1991:160). The underlining focus of my essay is The Criminal Justice System in England and Wales which is a key public service consisting of various bodies and individuals including: the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Court Service, National Offender Management Services (Probation and Prisons) and Youth Justice Board.

Back in the 1930’s, 120 000 youth crimes were committed a year. This might be a surprising figure, but when the Youth Criminal Justice Act came into effect in the year of 2003, the crime rate reduced to 50 000. This suggests that youth respond better to the societies who are helping them to reintegrate back into society. The YCJA is a more improved act that really distinguishes crimes and the court involved in the situation really needs to investigate to provide proper measures. Although one could argue that the YCJA provides an opportunity for a child to commit a crime, it is a fair and equitable act as it improves the youth justice system, has benefited Canada’s economy and provides great social benefits.

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

Young people represent the future of society. Consequently, they deserve respect and support while they develop in order to maintain a fair and just society. Therefore, it is the juvenile justice system’s responsibility to establish institutions and legislation to protect the important role that young people play in society. The system should also be driven by welfare and justice concerns as young people have special needs in regards to their age, and their physical, emotional and social development. It is essential that these welfare and justice concerns are addressed effectively by the system in order for young people to flourish. This essay will firstly assess the NSW juvenile justice system in regards to its treatment of young offenders in detention, in conjunction with its obligations under domestic and international law. Additionally, this essay will analyse evidence of welfare and justice concerns for youth offenders in detention in NSW. And furthermore, this essay will analyse the implications of youth detention on young offender’s and society. And ultimately argue that the NSW contemporary juvenile justice system is not driven by welfare and justice concerns. Given the fact that NSW has the highest rate of youth detention in Australia, and that there is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that youth detention carries detrimental physical and psychological consequences. Furthermore, the NSW juvenile justice system is not upholding the fact that young people

The current conventional criminal justice process takes a more punitive, ‘retributive’ view of criminal justice. The retributive approach has become grounded into our current system of justice whereby it intends to establish blame on offenders and make them repay their debt to society by inflicting a form of punishment (Ball, 2000). The general stance in relation to the ‘retributive system’ is that its more offender-oriented and its focus is the past rather than the future (Griffiths, 1999). In addition to establishing blame, it tends to give less attention to future-oriented concerns such as how to repair the damages caused by the crime and how future recurrences can be prevented (Young, M, 1999). It has been argued that the existing ‘retributive system’ places excessive emphasis on the past whilst being less constructive towards victims, offenders and the society, as a result youths tend to get labelled as criminal from an early age leading in some cases to a life delinquent offending behaviour (Braithwaite, 1989). At present a crime is viewed as a social conflict within society, and so a crime is perceived an offense against society rather

Critically discuss the assertion that “young people are propelled into crime through circumstances beyond their control” (Muncie, 2005, p.116).

The federal government of Canada fifteen years ago, in 1984, the Liberal party changed the Juvenile Delinquents Acts to the Youth Offenders Act to have a “More human approach to the rights of young people before the law”(Leschild and Jaffe, 8:1991). In the present such as Premier, Mike Harris, of Ontario wants the federal government of Canada to scrap the Young Offenders Act. In 1999, the same party that came up with the act is making majors changes to the act. This report will look at the young offenders act at the present time, look at why kids commit crime, what is being done to improve the act, what has the province done towards teenagers and also a look at the United Sates youth system.

The two contrasting approaches to Youth Justice System applied in two different countries is an American approach which its based on Classical theory (post 1960s) and a Swedish approach based on Positivism (current). The first one focuses on the offence committed by the child or the young person, procedural formality and in effect on punishment. This approach seems to be a similar approach to the ‘justice’ approach in the UK which was then successively replaced by the ‘welfare’ approach. America is currently in the process of developing a new way of looking at the Youth Justice System. Research by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice led many states and courts to view juvenile crime, and juvenile

The general public seems to associate a wide variety of crimes with young people. Drug offenses were the most common response, with about one quarter, followed in order by theft and stealing, vandalism, robbery, shoplifting and petty theft, murder, burglary, car theft and joy-riding, shootings and stabbings, and assault and battery. Overall, more respondents identified youth with non-violent crimes (drugs and property offenses such as theft and burglary) than violent crimes. The public believes that youth who break the law will commit other crimes in the future, even if youth have no prior record.