Let’s be Honest, the Youth Justice System Sucks…
People. Let’s be honest.
The youth justice system in England and Wales sucks…
The BBC recently aired a factual drama called ‘Responsible Child’ about Ray, about a boy who goes on trial as an adult for the murder of his stepfather alongside his older brother; Nathan. The film raises the ongoing and rarely addressed question in England and Wales; at what age can you be really be considered criminally responsible? Officially, it’s 10.
At 10 you cannot vote, have sex, smoke, drink, drive or go to war. Yet, in England and Wales, you can be tried as an adult in court.
So, in English law, the age of criminally responsible ability has been 10 since the early ’60s. The age is also ten in Northern Ireland and Scotland took the initiative to make it 12. Wales comes under English law and lacks any real political backbone to develop its own legal system. It should be noted that the average for the rest of Europe is 15. The age of 10 has been heavily criticised by many from the European Union to the United Nations.
Even in North Korea, you can only be tried as an adult at the age of 14.
In Finland, the age of criminal responsibility is 15, something that was adopted in the 1880s and the country has an almost zero % incarceration rate for young offenders. The youth justice system in England and Wales takes a different approach to young offenders compared to Finland. As defined by the Home Office; the youth justice system in England and Wales comprises of ‘a network of organisations working together under a legal framework and overseen by the Youth Justice Board’.
The Misspent Youth: Young People and Crime (Audit Commission, 1996) report highlighted a number of areas of inefficiency and ineffective areas including the length of the prosecution process and efforts made in the prevention of offending behaviour. The government responded with the white paper No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales (Home Office, 1997) which heavily influenced the Crime and Disorder Act in 1998. However, it’s still estimated that since 1995, over 7,000 children aged between 10–14 have been tried at Crown Courts in England and Wales.
The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act of 1999 attempted to radically change the methods used in dealing with young offenders. This was followed nine years later by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which outlined a Youth Rehabilitation Order, following in line with the original focus on prevention methods. Nonetheless, no dramatic improvements in the welfare of young offenders occurred and no major efforts have been made by the government to address or evaluate the age of criminal responsibility being 10, despite heavy criticism from the United Nations.
Ten years of age is ridiculously young.
Eric Allison reminded us that ‘in England and Wales, more children are imprisoned than in any other western European country’. In Finland ‘very few youngsters under the age of 21 are dealt with by the criminal justice system’ in fact ‘children who break the law are seen primarily as welfare cases’ (Easton, 2009). Allison reaffirmed that when comparing to other nations it can be noted that ‘in the UK, we lock up 23 children per 100,000 of the population, compared to six in France, two in Spain and 0.2 in Finland’. Less than 0.1% of Finland’s prison population are under 18, compared to 0.7% in England and Wales.
Re-offending rates are actually quite hard to compare due to the fact that Finland engages so much in preventative measurements that they have a lower youth offending rate in total, so those who did commit offences were the ones always most likely to. For a start when it comes to re-offending rates for incarcerated young people; England and Wales look better with a 75.1% re-offending rate compared to 100%. However, the rate England and Wales is based on a couple of thousand young people and Finland’s is based on 5. The five most vulnerable and damaged young people in the entire nation. Now when it comes to re-offending rates for those who do not receive a custodial sentence; Finland has a re-offending rate of 22% compared to 30% in England and Wales. The main problem is that the attitudes to prevention, prosecution and rehabilitation are so different that comparing re-offending rates are almost meaningless. A far more informed viewpoint can be made on incarceration rates as well as the ages of criminal responsibility.
The Youth Justice Board states that they ‘work to prevent children and young people under 18 from offending or re-offending’. Consisting of about ten to twelve people and supported by a permanent team the board monitors, advises, maintains and develops all areas of the youth justice system in England and Wales, this includes setting the national standards and overseeing the Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). According to the UK Government ‘Youth offending teams work with young people that get into trouble with the law’. The YOTs aid such young people through an assessment profile called ‘Asset Plus’.
Asset Plus was introduced in 2014 as some sort of improved version of ‘Asset’ (yes, the creativity is endless). The stated reasons were; a poor link between assessment and intervention, out of date and limited application, not that Asset Plus seems to have yielded any major improvements in practice… At the time of this writing:
The youth offending system in Croydon is breaking.
Medway Youth Jail engages in pain infliction.
More rural young people than ever are joining drug gangs.
We can attribute this to three factors:
The youth justice system does not have the resources it requires.
The general attitude in England and Wales is focused on punishment.
Whatever ‘prevention’ measures are in place, simply do not work.
From this, it can be determined that the three major problems with the system are; investment, attitude and prevention. Ironically the three things that Finland’s main focus when it comes to youth justice. Even in the North of the UK, Scotland (as per usual in this union) is leading the charge when it comes to real youth justice reform.
Timo Harrikari stated that in Finland ‘they took a decision in principle to formulate a national crime prevention programme on 4 March 1999’. Similar to that of the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA), however, the NCA generally pursues criminals whereas the Finnish version engages in common policy for action on the prevention of crime. Corresponding to the Youth Justice Boards aim of preventing young people from offending or re-offending; the Finnish crime prevention programme also recommends ‘cooperation between the school, youth work, social welfare and the police in the prevention of youth crime and anti-social behaviour by children and the young’ (Harrikari, 2013).
In England and Wales, the Youth Justice Board merely states that it is responsible for ‘commissioning and publishing research on preventing youth offending’. Followed by the YOTs who ‘work with young people that get into trouble with the law’ as stated by the Government Digital Service. The Finnish counterpart is known as ‘Working Together for a Safe Society — The National crime Prevention Programme, known as WTSS, monitored by the Council of Crime Prevention focuses heavily on action consisting of systems designed to decrease suitable opportunities for crime. The YOTs do have crime prevention programmes, but the focus seems to be more on working with those who have offended. Whereas the Finnish continue to focus on systems designed to prevent the development of some individuals into offenders through a number of programmes, rather than an offending team. Though these kinds of measures to run the risk of assumption, upon which young people are more likely to engage in criminal activities and need prevention techniques; such as those from alcoholic families, etc. However, this is noted by Timo Harrikari who suggested ‘the presentation of the programme could be characterised as moderate while proposing that ‘supportive action’ should not lead to labelling’.
The Finnish do focus heavily on crime prevention in young people and it does seem to have a great effect, but they still have young people who commit crime. However, their attitude to dealing with this is an almost polar opposite to England and Wales.
It was Mark Easton who brought to light that over 60% of children locked up by the state in the UK are known to have mental health problems. In Finland, such youngsters are more likely to be patients in well-funded psychiatric units. This could be down to how society feels about such issues; Finland is a society that sees delinquency and youth crime as a welfare issue. Whereas in the UK such crimes are usually by a witch hunt and calls for punishment, especially in major criminal cases perpetrated by young people, such as the reaction the James Bulger murder by Jon Venables and Rob Thompson in 1993. These boys were given life sentences for the crime, but members of the general public called for their hanging.
Just to repeat that; the British public was calling for the hanging of 10 and 11-year-old boys.
They were released on licence in 2001 with new identities much to the outcry of public opposition. It is clear that public attitudes between Finland and the UK are different considering that when Mark Easton interviewed random members of the public in Helsinki Mall, he ‘could not find a single shopper who thought the state was “too soft” on juvenile offenders’. He also noted that ‘the Finns regard Britain’s “obsession” with prison as barbaric and ineffective’. So, are the major differences in effective rehabilitation and prevention just due to public opinion?
Both systems have a devolved aspect to them with either individual YOTs or municipalities working in a method or approach adapted for that specific local government/area’s needs. The WTSS (National Crime Prevention Programme) in Finland rationalises this by stating that there are considerable regional differences in crime. This is where similarities change, the system in England and Wales seems to work through the legal system with the young people while addressing their health and well-being. However, the Finnish system seems to address the young person’s welfare above all else and this can be seen in incarceration rates. While the UK has around three thousand juvenile offenders locked up yearly, Finland’s system incarcerates on average three to five. Finland’s system highlights what the Howard League for Penal Reform states; “prison is an ineffective way of reducing crime”.
So, let’s be honest, the youth justice system in England and Wales sucks. Maybe it’s time to take a leaf out of Finland’s book?
