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

IntroductionThe discussion of the young person person nicety insurance policy in Britain has re-gained importance in the aftermath of the August 2011 riots, which spread across capital of the United Kingdom and other study cities in the country. Think tank analysts and policy experts argued, that the young persons which allegedly took set forth in the riots, were disillusioned and de-motivated issue people from broken homes (Politics UK, 2011). The hidden societal problem behind youth engagement in the capital of the United Kingdom riots raised the question about the efficacy of the youth legal expert body in Britain, and debates about its institutional reform permeated the semipolitical discourse.After the unhinged get through of James Bulger in 1993 by both ten-year old boys the exoteric and policy-makers became convinced, that only a general policy reform of the youth evaluator body is not sufficient. Rather a reform of specific sectors much(prenominal) as the ones dealing with anti-social behaviour and gang crime was much much(prenominal) urgent (Guardian, 2011). The purpose of this short turn up is to critically review the divergent phases in the development of the youth judge ashes from the 1940s to 1981. ground on the conclusions, in the final section recommendations for policy reform entrust be made. Research questionThe purpose of this essay is to critically get on the different stages in the evolution of the youth justice policy in Britain. Based on this observation, the paper will provide an assessment of how the agreement has evolved and what the principal(prenominal) trends in its version are. For clarity the author has decided to bankrupt the observations in the pastime stages from penalisation to wellbeing, young offenders enter the federation, and the strengthening of the mediate Treatment. Each one of them will be critically analysed in the following sections. The youth justice system in Britain a reviewi n the beginning we proceed with the examination of the main developments in the youth justice system in the set period, it is significant to provide a brief overview of the main components and structures of this system.Similarly to other types of youth justice systems, the British one inclines towards prevention, sort of then retribution (Bottoms & Dignan, 2004). Bottoms and Dignan (2004) refer to the British youth justice system as a chasteningalist and committed to the prevention of committing offences. The idea of the correctionalist system implies stronger preventive on behalf of the state, as opposed to earlier views such as permit young offenders grow out of the crime.This characteristic trend, experts argue, reflects a much more complex and multi-level greet to dealing with youth crime, involving different elements such as parents and agency teams. The trend has been accompanied with an intensive institutional reform, such as the introduction of the semi-independent bod y of the Youth umpire Board with the 1998 Crime and put out perform (Community Care, 2010). In the years to follow, there has been a trend for the nuclear fusion of all activities related with youth justice under the umbrella of a single department the Ministry of justness, in order to create accountability and high levels of responsibility in one of the most important and problematic policy areas in Britain. The 1940s from punishment to welfareIt is now clear that callers views on crime change over time and are susceptible to diachronic and social conditions. The youth justice system in Britain is an example of the transformation of the concepts of crime and offender in social and political terms. thereof the way young whitlows have been treated by the twist justice system has been a subject of reform throughout the years.In the late 1930s and early 1940s, perhaps one of the most important developments in the youth justice system is that a line amongst children and adu lt offenders was finally drawn. For the first time in the early 30s and 40s, the courts were induce to consider the welfare of the child (Thorpe et. al, 1980). This marked a significant transformation of the whole justice system, because it determined a different role of the courts, related not only with taking punitive action, but excessively correction and care for the young offenders. It is now clear that the transformation from punishment to welfare has been later underpinned in another important document the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Youth rightness 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 field 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 next several decades, and had its peak in the 1960s, when a special legislation, pert ain with the social integration and correction of the young offenders was passed (Youth Justice Board, 2008 Thorpe et. al, 1980). In 1969 the force government passed a legislation to introduce a revised youth justice system, based on welfare principles and reformation of reprehensibles (Thorpe et. al, 1980). The 1969 Children and Young Persons Act emphasized 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 established the so-called halfway house which was the middle way surrounded by being subject to a Supervision Order (which requires minimum opposition amongst 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 mediocre Treatment (IT) and according to some observers was the foundation of the modern youth justice system.Another intended development of this period, wh ich however, did not come to fruition, was the attempt to increment the age of criminal responsibility 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 among the 1940s and the late 1960s are a result of the ride 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 provoked by the advent of capitalism and consumerism, which according to social historians, exacerbated the severalize divisions in British society (Greenaway et. al, 1992). The youth justice system was no exception 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 activity for which only courts had responsibility in the late 1960s it became a priority for the whole of the British society. The 1970s and 1980s the strengthening of the median(a) Treatment This decade was marked by persistence in the community-based intervention of young offenders. The role of community remained strong, and some judicial changes, such as the inclusion of specified activities in the Intermediate Treatment occurred. These were used to mold 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, in spite of their violations. At the same time they were expected to total to its development. In its turn, society was to participate in their rehabilitation and integration in the post-offence stage. This is an important charact eristics of the British youth justice system, because it reveals two things that there is no positive 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 two-year old James Bulger by two ten-year old boys was to vigor back the youth justice system towards punitive actions. Conclusion and recommendationsThis essay has attempted 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 innovation towards welferism and the steps towards correction, rather 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. divers(prenominal) units such as social workers, community volunteers, the police and those involved in education are to work together through enhanced dialogue. This agency 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 sectionalized approach to solving issues, related with youth crime in Britain.Bibliography B ottoms, A. & Dignan, J. (2004) Youth Justice in Great Britain, Crime and Justice, Vol. 31Children and Young Persons Act (1969), 22 October, The National 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. & 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/ web log/2011/aug/25/tony-blair-youth-policy-intervention-reformRetrieved 03.03.2012Politics UK (2011) Comment What is causing the riots in London?, mountain pass Cowen, Monday, 8th of August,Available athttp//www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/08/08/comm ent-what-is-causing-the-riots-in-londonRetrieved 03.03.2012Thorpe, D.H, Smith, D., Green, C.J, & Paley, J.H (1980) Out of Care The Community corroboration of Juvenile Offenders Allen and UnwinYouth Justice Board (2008) A Brief memoir of the Youth Justice System,Available at http//labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/5193/YJ_k523_1/sco.htmRetrieved 03.03.2012