Youth Justice Policy in Britain (1945-1981) †from Punishment to Welfare

IntroductionThe discussion of the c every(prenominal)owness referee policy in Britain has re-gained immenseness in the aftermath of the August 2011 riots, which spread across London and other major cities in the country. Think tank analysts and policy experts argued, that the spring chickens which allegedly took spark in the riots, were disillusioned and de-motivated juvenilityfulness people from broken homes (Politics UK, 2011). The deep friendly problem behind youth eng hop onment in the London riots raised(a) the question about the efficacy of the youth arbitrator body in Britain, and debates about its institutional reform permeated the political discourse.After the gruesome force back out of James Bulger in 1993 by two ten-year old boys the humans and policy-makers became convinced, that more(prenominal)over a general policy reform of the youth arbiter system of rules is non sufficient. Rather a reform of specific sectors such(prenominal) as the ones dealing with anti-social behaviour and gang crime was much more pressing (guardian, 2011). The purpose of this short essay is to critically review the diametrical phases in the development of the youth justice system from the forties to 1981. found on the conclusions, in the final section recommendations for policy reform will be do. Research questionThe purpose of this essay is to critically approach the contrary stages in the evolution of the youth justice policy in Britain. Based on this observation, the paper will provide an assessment of how the system has evolved and what the master(prenominal) trends in its transformation are. For clarity the author has decided to separate the observations in the following stages from punishment to social welfare, schoolgirlish offenders enter the residential area, and the streng whenceing of the Intermediate manipulation. all(prenominal) one of them will be critically analysed in the following sections. The youth justice system in Brita in a reviewBefore we arise with the examination of the main developments in the youth justice system in the set period, it is outstanding to provide a brief overview of the main components and structures of this system. in addition to other types of youth justice systems, the British one inclines towards prevention, rather then retribution (Bottoms &038 Dignan, 2004). Bottoms and Dignan (2004) refer to the British youth justice system as a field of studyalist and committed to the prevention of committing offences. The idea of the correctionalist system implies stronger intervention on behalf of the state, as opposed to earlier views such as letting young offenders grow out of the crime.This characteristic trend, experts argue, reflects a much more involved and multi-level approach to dealing with youth crime, involving different elements such as parents and post teams. The trend has been accompanied with an intensive institutional reform, such as the understructure of the semi -independent body of the younker Justice Board with the 1998 Crime and Disorder figure out (Community Care, 2010). In the years to follow, there has been a trend for the unification of all activities re juveniled with youth justice under the umbrella of a adept de billetment the Ministry of Justice, in order to create accountability and higher levels of indebtedness in one of the most primary(prenominal) and problematic policy areas in Britain. The 1940s from punishment to welfareIt is now clear that societys views on crime change over time and are sensitized to historical and social conditions. The youth justice system in Britain is an physical exercise of the transformation of the concepts of crime and offender in social and political terms. indeed the way young criminals have been treated by the criminal justice system has been a subject of reform throughout the years.In the late 1930s and aboriginal 1940s, perhaps one of the most important developments in the youth ju stice system is that a line among children and large(p) offenders was finally drawn. For the first time in the early 30s and 40s, the courts were obliged to opine the welfare of the child (Thorpe et. al, 1980). This marked a significant transformation of the exclusively justice system, beca utilise it determined a different authority of the courts, related not only with taking punitive action, but also correction and direction for the young offenders. It is now clear that the transformation from punishment to welfare has been afterward underpinned in another important document the UN Convention on the Rights of the infant ( offspring Justice Board, 2008). As the later stages of the British youth justice system demonstrate, the latter has always been responsive to the developments, taking place in the bailiwick of human rights at any particular time. The 1960s young offenders and the communityThe trend towards welferism which started in the early 1930s continued in the fo llowing several decades, and had its peak in the 1960s, when a special legislation, concerned with the social integration and correction of the young offenders was passed (Youth Justice Board, 2008 Thorpe et. al, 1980). In 1969 the Labour political relation passed a legislation to introduce a revised youth justice system, based on welfare principles and reformation of criminals (Thorpe et. al, 1980). The 1969 Children and boyish Persons Act show the role of the community as the environment, which would play a major role in the social integration of those who committed offences. The act also schematic the so-called halfway house which was the set way between universe subject to a Supervision Order (which requires minimum contact between supervisor and young person) and being taken into care (Youth Justice Board, 2008 Children and Young Persons Act, 1969). This new establishment came to be defined as Intermediate treatment (IT) and according to some observers was the foundation of the modern youth justice system. some other intended development of this period, which however, did not come to fruition, was the attempt to increase the age of criminal indebtedness from 10 to 14 years. Prior to the 1969 Act, the criminal responsibility age was only 8 years (Thorpe, et.al, 1980).The developments which took place between the 1940s and the late 1960s are a result of the rise of the welfare state in Britain and the rest of Europe. A major historical and sociological trend, the rise of the welfare state, which affected almost all policy sectors, was fire by the advent of capitalism and consumerism, which according to social historians, exacerbated the class divisions in British society (Greenaway et. al, 1992). The youth justice system was no excommunication of this trend, and the establishments of the 1969 Act were a signifier of the fusion between community and policy. Youth crime was no longer a detached criminal act for which only courts had responsibility in the late 1960s it became a precedence for the whole of the British society. The 1970s and 1980s the strengthening of the Intermediate Treatment This decade was marked by persistence in the community-based treatment of young offenders. The role of community remained strong, and some judicial changes, such as the cellular inclusion of specified activities in the Intermediate Treatment occurred. These were used to persuade magistrates to use communal sentences, instead of custodial sentences (Youth Justice Board, 2008).In this sense, the young offenders were made to participate in the welfare of the community as part of their correction process. In the light of these developments, it is interesting to notice that the connection between the community and young offenders remained twofold young offenders were still treated as part of society, despite their violations. At the same time they were expected to contribute to its development. In its turn, society was to participate in th eir rehabilitation and integration in the post-offence stage. This is an important characteristics of the British youth justice system, because it reveals two things that there is no compulsive connection between decreased custody and the level of youth offences, and that the British society took a middle stance between two types of justice restorative justice, focusing on repairing the harms, resulting from the offence, and retributive justice, which relates to facing the consequences of the punishment imposed. This middle stance was about to change in the 1990s, when the cruel murder of biyearly old James Bulger by two ten-year old boys was to push backbone the youth justice system towards punitive actions. Conclusion and recommendationsThis essay has essay to critically examine the main stages in the development of the British youth system between 1945 and 1981. Two major developments have been discussed the transition towards welferism and the step towards correction, ra ther than punishment and custodial action. The role of the society has remained significant, and despite the developments of the early 1990s, the re-integration of young offenders has remained on the agenda.After the murder of James Bulger in 1993, public attention was once more shifted towards the reform of the youth justice system, and more specifically against the prevention of offending and re-offending, rather than mending the consequences of it. Therefore it is important that government efforts targeted towards bringing all the institutions involved in the British youth system under a coordinated scheme of action. Different units such as social workers, community volunteers, the police and those involved in cultivation are to work together through enhanced dialogue. This means that the sectoralism in the criminal justice system needs to be reduced, and replaced with harmonization of efforts of different actors on all levels. This would ensure a holistic, rather than sectional ized approach to lick issues, related with youth crime in Britain.Bibliography Bottoms, A. &038 Dignan, J. (2004) Youth Justice in Great Britain, Crime and Justice, Vol. 31Children and Young Persons Act (1969), 22 October, The subject area Archives,Available at http//www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1969/54Retrieved 03.03.2012 Community Care (2010) Ministry of Justice to take control of Youth Justice Board, 20th May, Thursday,Available at http//www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/20/05/2010/114543/ministry-of-justice-to-take-control-of-youth-justice-board.htmRetrieved 03.03.2012Greenaway, J.R., Smith, S. &038 Street, J. (1992) Deciding Factors in British Politics, London Routledge ch. 2 pp. 29-39, ch 3.Guardian (2011) What next for youth policy?, August, 25,Available at http//www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/blog/2011/aug/25/tony-blair-youth-policy-intervention-reformRetrieved 03.03.2012Politics UK (2011) Comment What is causing the riots in London?, Nick Cowen, Monday, eighth of August,Available athttp//www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/08/08/comment-what-is-causing-the-riots-in-londonRetrieved 03.03.2012Thorpe, D.H, Smith, D., Green, C.J, &038 Paley, J.H (1980) Out of Care The Community Support of youthful Offenders Allen and UnwinYouth Justice Board (2008) A Brief History of the Youth Justice System,Available at http//labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/5193/YJ_k523_1/sco.htmRetrieved 03.03.2012