Risk Factors: Issues Answers | Assessment Answer

The Youth Justice System is an established legislature in the United Kingdom, regulated by the Government, which has made special provisions for proper care of juvenile offenders and their interactions with the system. Section 45 of The Children and Youth Person Act, 1933 provides provisions for juvenile courts (Haines and O’Mahony, 2006). The Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 under the United Kingdom laws has introduced a new custodial sentence called the “Detention Training Order” (DTO) which is applicable to only young.  The same is again decided into the Secure Training Home (STH) and Secure Training Order (STO) (Newburn, 2012). The said homes were to provide a youth offender who commits any crime the learning that it needed to became a well-behaved and better citizen of the nation (Hadfield, 2009).

However, Even after all these legislative filters, the Government is not hundred percent successful in developing the overall character of these young offenders and in the process of their entry into this system, their innocence along with their freedom is somewhat hampered (Burnett and Roberts, 2013). A major loophole in the youth justice system is clear in the case of Adam Rickwood, who became the youngest child in United Kingdom to die in State’s custody on August 2004. Adam Rickwood was 14 years old when produced to the Youth Justice Board for the charges of stabbing a nineteen-year-old boy. Adam Rickwood denied the offences but on investigation was guilty and sent to Hassockfeild Secure Training Centre (STC) that was 116 miles away from his house without the judge’s knowledge that the said child had history of causing self-hurt and committing suicide. He committed suicide after four adult carers in the STC restrained him. The SCT and the whole system were at fault for this event to take place. Adam’s lawyers argued that it was illegal to send Adam to the remand house as it was his first offence. This case brings many questions in the functioning of the youth justice system (Czyz et al 2013).

The basic aim of having a structural policy for youth justice is to prevent the young offenders from offending again and to provide them with a safe place in case of Custody. If the State fails to provide the same, like in the above case, it is necessary to make reforms in the youth justice system (Burnett and Roberts, 2013). The most important objective of this system is to develop the physical, mental and social well-being of these offenders at a young age to prevent them from becoming serious anti-social elements and criminals in the future. The European convention on children clearly states in its Article 24 that the Government should do all it can to attain the highest form of standard for children in the State which includes the child’s emotional as well as mental health. It further states the Government’s duty to protect each child from all types of abuses and violence. These are some universally regulated policies, which the government needs to keep in mind while sentencing a juvenile criminal to remand house or while giving any detention and training orders (DTO).

As opined by Stephenson, Giller and Brown (2010), the government needs to understand that a youth who are committing offences needs security with treatment more than punishment. The system needs to make sure that only youth committing serious offences need sentenced to go to secure training centres. One major reason for this is that the mental health of a young offender is more prone to mental disorders and depression. Offenders at a hinder age, usually away from home become more violent thus; the way the children spend their time in the STC’s should feature teaching them how to become law-abiding citizens (Czyz et al. 2013). If an offender develops any signs of mental disorder or depression, the same needs to be death with utmost care and with a help of a professional in a field who have experience in handling the needs of such a special child. The basic loophole is in diagnosis of these mental disorders and lack of the awareness to transfer such offender’s suffering from the same to appropriate institutions.

Another issue in the youth justice system in United Kingdom is that of racism (Newburn, 2012). There is profound racism against the Black and Asian juveniles in United Kingdom compared to the Whites even though both have committed the same offence. Racism starts with the system as blacks are considered eligible to be tried under the adult justice system ignoring their age and are more likely to be sentenced for a longer period compared to their white counterpart. The discrimination that starts with the system continues in the custody too where all juvenile are kept.

These loopholes made the activist of youth justice system to come up with ASSET, assessment toll, developed by the Youth Justice Board introduced to calculate and eliminate the risks in the Youth Justice system (Hadfield, 2009). This toll looked critically into every child’s offence and identified the reasons for the behaviour like bad company, lack of education, disturbed household or mental disorders. The information collected by ASSET is beneficial to make reports that the Court considers, while making future amendments in the sentences of the juvenile. The same report also helps the STC’s as it is a detailed analysis of every problem related to the offender from its offence to mental health to development thus, this report makes the STC’s work on improving their techniques to reform a child on individual basis. (Bosworth,  2011).

To conclude, it is important to follow the procedures that the legislature has enforced, as dealing with a young offender can be very complex and it is important that such offenders be treated rather than punished to make them better human beings and law-abiding citizens.

Reference List

Bosworth, M., 2011. Deportation, detention and foreign-national prisoners in England and Wales. Citizenship Studies, 15(5), pp.583-595.

Burnett, R. and Roberts, C. eds., 2013. What Works in Probation and Youth Justice. Routledge.

Czyz, E.K., Horwitz, A.G., Eisenberg, D., Kramer, A. and King, C.A., 2013. Self-reported barriers to professional help seeking among college students at elevated risk for suicide. Journal of American College Health, 61(7), pp.398-406.

Hadfield, P. ed., 2009. Nightlife and crime: social order and governance in international perspective. OUP Oxford.

Haines, K. and O’Mahony, D., 2006. Restorative approaches, young people and youth justice. Youth crime and justice, p.119.

Newburn, T. ed., 2012. Handbook of policing. Routledge.

Sharkey, N. and Sharkey, A., 2010. The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. Interaction Studies, 11(2), pp.161-190.

Stephenson, M., Giller, H. and Brown, S., 2010. Effective practice in youth justice. Routledge.