This assignment gives the advantages of the justice approach and welfare treatment of young suspects and offenders within the United Kingdom.
Applying the full force of the criminal law to children and youths has for some time been held to be questionable. In the United Kingdom, the period of criminal obligation is ten in England and Wales (in Scotland it is eight, inferable from a fairly diverse adolescent equity system). This is strangely low compared to where the rest of Europe are on the list where in Denmark and Scandinavia the period of criminal obligation is fifteen, while in Germany it is fourteen and France it is thirteen.
This has issued many questions over the extent to which children can be considered responsible for their conduct in criminal law – and on the off chance that they are considered to be responsible, then why should incarcerating children be the place to manage their offending?
These contentions between these two methodologies have structured much debate and while there are many questions marks over whether the New Labour government, in force in 1997 to 2010, introduced another period of new youth equity, it is positively the case that the various approaches it has presented have been bewilderingly unpredictable and uneasy blend. They extend from correctional and criminalising to more inclusionary and restorative based practices. Introduction The measures presented by the New Labour government in the field of youth justice in the UK incorporated the setting up of the Youth Justice Board, the formation of Youth Offending Teams, and the rebuilding of the non-custodial punishments accessible to the adolescent court that have strengthened community programs in some very creative endeavours to diminish offending. In the meantime, the Labour government enthusiastically pursued a campaign against anti-social behaviour, which some argue was for all intents and purposes concocted by the New Labour and has seen 'a nine fold rise in the number of children under 15 being sentenced to custody' (Tonry. M. 2004). Latest figures have demonstrated that the quantity of 15-17 year olds incarcerated has dramatically increased in the most recent ten years Generally speaking, then, the heap improvements in youth equity strategy must be arranged in this more extensive picture of corrective development, which is firmly illustrated by the sharp rise in incarcerated children (Bright, M. 2003, pp.9). Although some have proposed that the conflictions amongst ‘welfare’ and ‘justice’ approaches have a place with a time that has now passed, it could be contended that the underlying assumptions educating every methodology can significantly affect efforts to develop a 'rights-based agenda' that challenges the criminalisation of youths and children. This paper will look at the advantages of these methodologies and before concluding with some of the prospects and issues that surrounded the Youth Justice Board. Justice Approach The justice system seems to more proactive, preventative with children that are at risk of reoffending, this has got to be one of the principle philosophical boards supporting the new way to deal with youth justice as cherished in the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998. In reality, this legislation presented another single statutory aim for the younger offender justice system – to deter offending and reoffending by youths, which helped relieved the tensions between the "welfare" and "justice" models and bring together specialists towards a shared and common purpose. This approach was ensured that interventions are tailored to the specific offender based on the individuals risk and needs. This theory is aimed to reduce re-offending for each person by, tailoring the intensity of intervention to the assessment, effectively managing risk of …show more content…
For instance, offending, reoffending, reconviction, substance use, anti-social behaviour that supposedly come about because of presentation to risk factors. This methodology depicts youngsters as passive, vulnerable, unsafe and hazardous unless adults mediate in their lives utilising risk-focused reactions (Haines and Case 2012). PYJ is dynamic through its emphasis on advancing positive practices and results for youngsters, for example, access to their all inclusive rights, access to and engagement with supportive services, opportunities, and direction, educational achievement, employment, and training. PYJ looks to normalise offending behaviour by youths and to react through promotional, child-friendly, diversionary and inclusionary mediations (see Case and Haines
Applying the full force of the criminal law to children and youths has for some time been held to be questionable. In the United Kingdom, the period of criminal obligation is ten in England and Wales (in Scotland it is eight, inferable from a fairly diverse adolescent equity system). This is strangely low compared to where the rest of Europe are on the list where in Denmark and Scandinavia the period of criminal obligation is fifteen, while in Germany it is fourteen and France it is thirteen.
This has issued many questions over the extent to which children can be considered responsible for their conduct in criminal law – and on the off chance that they are considered to be responsible, then why should incarcerating children be the place to manage their offending?
These contentions between these two methodologies have structured much debate and while there are many questions marks over whether the New Labour government, in force in 1997 to 2010, introduced another period of new youth equity, it is positively the case that the various approaches it has presented have been bewilderingly unpredictable and uneasy blend. They extend from correctional and criminalising to more inclusionary and restorative based practices. Introduction The measures presented by the New Labour government in the field of youth justice in the UK incorporated the setting up of the Youth Justice Board, the formation of Youth Offending Teams, and the rebuilding of the non-custodial punishments accessible to the adolescent court that have strengthened community programs in some very creative endeavours to diminish offending. In the meantime, the Labour government enthusiastically pursued a campaign against anti-social behaviour, which some argue was for all intents and purposes concocted by the New Labour and has seen 'a nine fold rise in the number of children under 15 being sentenced to custody' (Tonry. M. 2004). Latest figures have demonstrated that the quantity of 15-17 year olds incarcerated has dramatically increased in the most recent ten years Generally speaking, then, the heap improvements in youth equity strategy must be arranged in this more extensive picture of corrective development, which is firmly illustrated by the sharp rise in incarcerated children (Bright, M. 2003, pp.9). Although some have proposed that the conflictions amongst ‘welfare’ and ‘justice’ approaches have a place with a time that has now passed, it could be contended that the underlying assumptions educating every methodology can significantly affect efforts to develop a 'rights-based agenda' that challenges the criminalisation of youths and children. This paper will look at the advantages of these methodologies and before concluding with some of the prospects and issues that surrounded the Youth Justice Board. Justice Approach The justice system seems to more proactive, preventative with children that are at risk of reoffending, this has got to be one of the principle philosophical boards supporting the new way to deal with youth justice as cherished in the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998. In reality, this legislation presented another single statutory aim for the younger offender justice system – to deter offending and reoffending by youths, which helped relieved the tensions between the "welfare" and "justice" models and bring together specialists towards a shared and common purpose. This approach was ensured that interventions are tailored to the specific offender based on the individuals risk and needs. This theory is aimed to reduce re-offending for each person by, tailoring the intensity of intervention to the assessment, effectively managing risk of …show more content…
For instance, offending, reoffending, reconviction, substance use, anti-social behaviour that supposedly come about because of presentation to risk factors. This methodology depicts youngsters as passive, vulnerable, unsafe and hazardous unless adults mediate in their lives utilising risk-focused reactions (Haines and Case 2012). PYJ is dynamic through its emphasis on advancing positive practices and results for youngsters, for example, access to their all inclusive rights, access to and engagement with supportive services, opportunities, and direction, educational achievement, employment, and training. PYJ looks to normalise offending behaviour by youths and to react through promotional, child-friendly, diversionary and inclusionary mediations (see Case and Haines