Suchergebnisse

Purpose – The general consensus amongst policy makers regarding the causal explanations for the involvement of young people in the August Riots of 2011 seems to have centred on "mindless criminality" and "thuggery". These explanations have tended to be quite one dimensional where complexity has been avoided in favour of simplicity. Issues of structural inequality, poverty and social injustice appeared to be negated by political figures in favour of an emphasis on neo-liberal, individualistic explanations and solutions. Understanding that there have been very different interpretations of the riots, where some have come to very different opinions from the same data, the purpose of this paper is to revisit the causes and meanings of the rioting that took place over a five-day period in August 2011. Second by drawing on social democratic perspectives the paper stipulates several factors that if not dealt with may give rise to future rioting. Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis. I draw on the work of a number of key academics and commentators to enrich the analysis. Findings – Within the paper it is argued that the policies that emanate from neo-liberal political ideologies have impacted disproportionately on working class children and young people. More specifically the paper finds that problems experienced are deemed to be the responsibility of the individual, side-lining the influence of ecological and socio-economic factors. Originality/value – In the light of the criticisms of neo-liberalistic approaches, social democratic perspectives are drawn upon in order to consider new ways of approaching the issues facing children and young people within contemporary society. Such perspectives are concerned with addressing structural inequality, poverty and social injustice.

Purpose: First, it is the intention of this paper to explore the impact of riskfocussed intervention on the lives of young offenders and young people defined to be 'at risk' of crime. Second, the paper considers 'alternative perspectives' and the prospect of a youth justice predicated upon the principles of informal justice, child-friendly values and the notion of inclusion. Design/methodology/approach: The first part of the paper reviews the theory and literature on early-preventative intervention in the youth justice system. The second part of the paper explores 'alternative perspectives', drawing on restorative justice, restorative approaches and diversionary measures. Findings: The paper presents three general findings. First, young people can be subject to youth justice intervention without a 'presenting problem' or offence committed. More pertinently this form of pre-emptive criminalisation violates the child's human rights, due-process and legal safeguards. Second, young people who are drawn into the net of formal youth justice intervention can suffer from the stigmatising and labelling effects of being criminalised. Third, there is a pressing need for youth justice policy and practice to be transformed in order to allow for the implementation of more informal, diversionary and restorative measures. Originality/value: The paper has great value for students of youth justice, and policy-makers, especially the conservative-liberal democrat government who wish to cut costs, introduce Restorative Justice on a large scale and appear to be in favour of diverting young people away from formal youth justice intervention.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection on the current trajectory of youth justice policy. The paper offers fresh insight into the changing face of youth justice. Design/methodology/approach: – The paper draws on a range of sources, including published journal articles and statistical evidence. In so doing it critically reviews relevant academic literature. Findings: – Three critical insights arise from the review. First, there are promising approaches emerging in youth justice organised around the principle of avoiding formal processing of young people where possible; such as, for example, Triage, the Youth Restorative Disposal, Youth Justice Liaison and Diversion schemes, the Swansea Bureau and the Durham Pre- Reprimand Disposal. Thus there is evidence of an emerging consensus, across the domains of policy, practice and legislation which seem to endorse the idea of community-based minimum intervention, supported by principles of offender rehabilitation and restoration. Second, whilst they have not intruded to any great extent in the sphere of youth justice so far, there is no doubt that the government is keen to extend the remit of Payment by Results schemes. Perhaps most concerning is the issue with private sector organisations engaging in "gaming activities" where maximising profit becomes the intention over enhancing the well-being of the young person. Third, it is argued that in order to reconcile the lack of user-led engagement of offenders, and experiences of disempowerment, the priority should be, throughout the Youth Justice System, to involve young people in assessment and decision-making processes. Research limitations/implications: – As an exploratory paper, it does not set out to provide a blueprint on "how" the issues outlined should be resolved. Rather, it provides a basis for further discussion, and highlights some examples of promising practice, particularly around the issues of offender engagement, participation and rights compliance. This is particularly important considering that the UK government will report to the United Nations this year (2014) on its progress in 3 / 7 implementing and complying with the children's right agenda. Practical implications: – The paper highlights the issues and ambiguities facing practitioners working within a payment by results framework which is contextualised by what appears to be a more liberal tone in public policy. It also explores the challenges delivering participatory approaches. Originality/value: – The paper investigates a neglected area in youth justice, namely that of participatory approaches. It argues that, although there are resource pressures and time constraints, service user participatory techniques should be encouraged, particularly as they promote positive engagement and motivation, principally by offering a sense of control over choice.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the "new" approach to tackling anti-social behaviour outlined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Despite it being difficult to ascertain whether such measures will be more inclusive and appropriate than those previously introduced – certainly at this early stage – the authors set out to evaluate the strengths, limitations and challenges of this "new" agenda and in doing so drawing upon the propositions insights from radical moral communitarianism in order to inform the discussion. Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis of government policy. The authors draw on the work of a number of key academics and commentators to enhance the discussion. Findings – In many respects, the authors have rehearsed some familiar lines of argument and analysis. Indeed, many of New Labour's anti-social behaviour measures were in many cases counterproductive, particularly in the case of children and young people invariably increasing the likelihood of offending rather than curtailing it. Understanding this, the authors propose that it would appear logical where at all possible to deal with anti-social behaviour informally, that is, outside the formal anti-social behaviour framework and through the comprehensive balanced intervention proposed from a radical moral communitarian perspective which seeks to avoid formal criminalisation except as a last resort. With regard to the "new" anti-social behaviour measures the authors argue that rather than punishing the actions as a contempt of court practitioners need to devise suitable, more appropriate ways of dealing with the matter before them. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) provides practitioners with the space to do this particularly with the process being streamlined and much of the previous bureaucracy removed. Practical implications – By focusing on the introduction of the "new" anti-social behaviour measures the paper will be of use to local decision makers (i.e. Youth Offending Team practitioners, Police and Crime Commissioners, and Directors of Children's Services). The paper highlights some potential issues and ambiguities that practitioners working within the new anti-social behaviour framework may face. Originality/value – The authors set out to critically reflect on the "new" powers set out in the recent Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014). Nevertheless, the authors are not offering the paper as an alternative blueprint for dealing with anti-social behaviour but rather seeking to provoke further discussion on some of the potential issues and ambiguities the authors have identified within the new legislation. At the same time, the authors incorporate insights from the radical moral communitarian perspective which promotes a fairer, more equal world, based on mutual respect between all citizens, founded on the notion of commitment to and involvement in society.

In contemporary youth justice in England and Wales, there is too much emphasis on offence- and offender- focused approaches and an insufficient focus on promoting positive outcomes for children in conflict with the law. What is more, since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the voices of children embroiled in the Youth Justice System have been marginalised and their participatory rights rendered invalid. Both children and Youth Offending Team workers are finding involvement in the Youth Justice System (e.g. assessment, planning, intervention, supervision and review) to be a disempowering and disengaging experience. In this paper, we outline a number of contemporary tensions and conflicts in relation to youth justice law, policy and practice: the highly political context of youth justice, the criminalising risk, prevention and early intervention agendas and the unique and specialised nature of youth justice services. We also introduce a focus for future developments and 'creative possibilities' for youth justice. Specifically, we advocate for Children First, Offenders Second (CFOS), a progressive and principled model of youth justice that advocates for child sensitive, child appropriate services, diversion and the promotion of positive behaviours and outcomes for children, underpinned by evidence-based partnership working and the engagement of children (and parents) at all stages of the youth justice process.