(11) Young people & Crime PDF

Preview

Summary

Natalie Harrison...

Description

FORENSICS: LECTURE 11- YOUNG PEOPLE AND CRIME -

1847: Juvenile Offenders Act 1854 & 1901: Youthful Offenders Act, Diversions away from prisons 1908: Children Act, Juvenile Courts 1963: Children & Young Persons Act, Raises AOCR to 10 1993: Criminal Justice Act, Tougher sentences 1998: Crime and Disorder Act, Youth Offending Teams 1999: Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, Introduction of ASBOs (Removed 2014 and replaced with civil and criminal behaviour orders)

CASE STUDY 1: JAMES BULGER: - 12th February 1993 - 2 years old - Liverpool - Abducted, tortured and killed Perpetrators: Two ten-year-old boys Punishment: - After their trial, the boys were sentenced to be detained for 8 years - Raised to 10 years by the Lord Chief Justice - Raised to 15 years by the Home Secretary In June 2001, the boys were released on parole. - The High Court granted them life-long anonymity to protect them from vigilantes - Implications of the case - Created a moral panic around youth crime - 10 days after the murder, the Home Secretary announced plans to establish secure training units for 12-15-year-old offenders Triggered a debate about the treatment of child offenders (James & Jerks, 1996). CASE STUDY 2: SILJE MARIE REDERGARD: - 15th October 1994 - 5 years old - Norway - Beat, tortured and murdered Perpetrators: Two boys aged 5 and 6 years old Punishment: - The boys underwent psychological evaluation - Treated as victims - Returned to school shortly after the incident PERCEPTIONS OF CHILDHOOD: Two childhood paradigms (Muncie, 2015): - Romantic view – childhood is an innocent period - Evangelical view – childhood is inherently corrupt, and we need to guide/protect children James Bulger – children are innocent. Boys demonised and need control Silje Rederhard – we guide children and support them to deal with their behaviour

FORENSICS: LECTURE 11- YOUNG PEOPLE AND CRIME WHAT IS CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY? The ability to “tell right from wrong”: - Understand what behaviours are/are not acceptable - Understand consequences of behaviours - Feel guilt and shame The ability to cope with the process of criminal justice: - Memory - Be questioned - Understand the outcomes and punishments PREVALENCE OF YOUTH OFFENDING:

HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO ADULT CRIME? Cooper and Row (2012): - Police records in the UK. - Young people, aged 10-17 years old are responsible for 23% of all police reported crime - 20% of all police reported crime was committed by young males

FORENSICS: LECTURE 11- YOUNG PEOPLE AND CRIME -

Young people are involved in the majority of robberies Unlikely to be involved in fraud

WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE CJS? - Cases are heard in a youth court. Sentences take into account: - Age - Seriousness of the offence - Likelihood of further offences being committed - Harm likely to be caused OUTCOMES: Order

Description

L

Community Resolution

Used for minor offences.

N

Youth Caution

Offences not suitable for trial. Young person takes responsibility of the offence, and there is evidence to convict.

N

Youth Conditional Caution

Conditions include – community reparation, specific offence work, reparation with victims

N

Criminal Behaviour Order

Replaced ASBOs. Used to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour.

1

Youth Rehabilitation Order

Generic sentence. Can include – unpaid work, curfews, education requirements, drug tests, electronic monitoring

U

Referral Order

Contract with a panel. Must be first offence. Can include reparation for the victim.

1

Detention and Training Order

Custodial sentence – half served in custody and half in the community. Young offender institutions are used for 15-21 YO, secure training centres for 14-17 YO and secure children's homes for 10-14 YO

4

REVIEW OF THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM (2016): - Young people who offend should be seen as children first and offenders second - Welfare needs are paramount - Young people should be diverted out of the YJS wherever possible - Victims are at the heart of the youth justice system - When custodial sentences are necessary, emphasis should be placed on providing education through secure schools. - Focus should be on rehabilitation EXPLANATIONS OF JUVENILE OFFENDING:

FORENSICS: LECTURE 11- YOUNG PEOPLE AND CRIME The Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study: - New Zealand - Designed to investigate child health and development - One-year birth cohort – 1 April 1972-31 March 1973 - 1037 children. - 535 boys, 502 girls, 1013 singletons, 24 twins. - Study members now in their 40s. At age 38 spread across the world - Measures included: - Psychometric testing - Teacher and parent ratings - Conduct disorder scales - DSM scales - Self-report for delinquency and crime - Police/court reports - Peer nominations - Spouse/partner reports Moffitt’s (1993) developmental taxonomy:

Adolescent-limited offenders

Life-course persistent offenders:

FORENSICS: LECTURE 11- YOUNG PEOPLE AND CRIME

Life course persistent (LCP) offenders: - 5% of people are responsible for around 50% of all crime - LCP offenders are a stable group of people that commit crime across the life course - Continuity is key – suggests a distinct aetiology Cross situational consistency: - Lies at home - Stealing from shops - Cheating at school - Fighting in bars - Committing fraud at work

Foetal Development

NEUROLOGICAL RISK FACTORS:

Environmental Factors e.g. maternal substance use, poor nutrition (e.g., Stewart, 1993)

Genetic Inheritance some structural or functional abnormalities in the brain are inherited.

Neuropsychological Dysfunction

Prenatal and postnatal genetic and environmental factors lead to neuropsychological dysfunction.

Verbal Deficits Receptive listening, reading, problemsolving, memory.

Executive Deficits e.g. Inability to concentrate, impulsivity.

School problems, truancy, frustration, anger, aggression, irritable, hard to keep on schedule, delayed in reaching developmental milestones

FORENSICS: LECTURE 11- YOUNG PEOPLE AND CRIME The contribution of the environment: These children will often be born into “unsupportive” (adverse) environments because parent and child characteristics correlate. - Parents who utilise harsh and inconsistent parenting - Parents who may be unemployed, with a lack of physical resources - Unstable family relationships - Substance misuse “Problem” children  “Problem” parents - Evocative interaction: Negative child behaviour evokes harsh discipline and a series of failed parent-child interactions; problem behaviour is exacerbated. CONTINUITY ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE: Two types of continuity: - Contemporary continuity – the same traits lead to antisocial behaviour at different points in the life course - Cumulative continuity – antisocial behaviour leads to likelihood of further antisocial behaviour - Failure to learn prosocial alternatives - Becoming ensnared into a deviant lifestyle. ADOLESCENCE LIMITED OFFENDERS: - Engage in minor crimes and delinquent behaviours - Short criminal career - Stop offending when they reach adulthood - Lacks cross-situational consistency How can we explain adolescent limited (AL) offenders? The sporadic nature of the behaviours suggests the causes are unique, via three elements: Motivation: - The Maturity Gap: - physiological maturity: Height & Weight, Hormones, Sexual maturity - adult social roles: Alcohol consumption, Employment, Driving Age Mimicry & Reinforcement: - LCP peers model antisocial behaviour - ALs mimic the behaviours – Reinforcement What encourages the al group to stop offending? - Exiting the maturity gap - Gaining access - Reinforcement stops – antisocial behaviour is no longer acceptable DOES RESEARCH SUPPORT THE THEORY? Evidence has been presented to support basic predictions of the theory, e.g., ... - Childhood-onset offenders had high-risk backgrounds, whereas adolescent-onset offenders did not (Moffitt & Caspi, 2001).

FORENSICS: LECTURE 11- YOUNG PEOPLE AND CRIME -

Neuropsychological difficulties in childhood predict later offending (e.g., Piquero, 2001). However, ... - McGloin et al. (2006) found that maternal smoking did not predict problematic outcomes and offending. - Barnes (2013) found no evidence for an interaction between genetic and environmental factors in offending behaviour. CRITIQUE: Strengths: - Shows Different pathways into offending - Incorporates an impressive array of factors- effective theory-knitting. Weaknesses: - Are two pathways enough? - Are there two types of AL offenders? - high and low rate (Nagin et al., 1995) - What about adult-onset offenders? - What about individuals who offend from an early age but desist in adulthood? - The applicability of the theory to females has been questioned (Silverthorn & Frick, 1999). - It does not really recognise the importance of life events (protective/risk factors). ARE 2 PATHWAYS ENOUGH? Abstainers - Participants with no more than one antisocial problem at any assessment age. - 5% of the cohort. - At 18, they were over controlled, timid, good students, latecomers to sexual relationships and socially awkward. Recoveries - Participants with stable, pervasive and extreme antisocial problems in childhood but participation during adolescence not extreme enough for LCP criteria. - 8% of cohort. - True recoveries are extremely rare. - Also known as low level chronic offenders. One third suffered anxiety or depression, high levels of neuroticism, socially isolated, difficulty making friends. TO CONCLUDE: - The prevalence of young people who offend appears to be decreasing, however, the prevalence of specific offences is increasing - Perceptions of young offending vary between countries - Moffitt’s (1993) developmental taxonomy can help explain patterns in offending - There are strengths and limitations to this theory....