Labour's youth justice reforms: hit, miss or maybe?
In May 2008 we published an independent assessment of Labour's record on youth justice ten years on from the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. The report claimed that despite substantial investment in radically restructuring and expanding the youth justice system, claims of success were overstated. View the report here.
The report provoked a strongly worded letter from Frances Done, chair of the Youth Justice Board, to the Centre's director Richard Garside. Richard wrote a defence of the report in a letter to Frances. Both letters are reproduced here.
 (2.8MB Adobe/PDF) |
 (120KB Adobe/PDF) |
Frances and Richard also discussed the report in a lively debate at King's College London on 17 July, chaired by BBC Radio Four's Robin Lustig. Also taking part in the debate were Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green, Children's Commissioner for England; Fiona Millar, writer and chair, National Family Parenting Institute; and Mike Thomas, Chair, Association of Youth Offending Team Managers. Robin offered his own thoughts on the report and debate in his blog.
QUESTION: Hit, miss or maybe? What do you think of Labour's youth justice reforms?
|
On
28/08/08
at
11:06am
Ali Jamil Gariuti
wrote:
I am an educator at a Youth Offenders Institute for 15-18 year olds. Youths who are sentenced for less than one year in custody derive little benefit from the custodial education and it is not value for money for the taxpayers. Some of them enter custodial life with apprehension, by the end of their short stay they become accustomed to the carefree life of imprisonment and return back within a few weeks from release. I am a PhD researcher, investigating the value of custodial education for youth offenders for whom their sentence is longer than one year. |
|
On
03/09/08
at
6:18pm
Peake Bryan
wrote:
New Labour's determination to use the Criminal justice system to try to engineer 'good' social outcomes is exemplified by impementation of this policy over the last ten years. In attempting to define that which is 'acceptable' purely in behavioural terms,to deliberately confuse the 'criminal' with the 'antisocial', to coerce compliance through the mechanisms of the Youth Justice system , acknowledging only one kind of 'evidence' , ignoring the social content and context ,and claiming to be able to predict and control human action via the application of mechanistic, technological developments the Government demeans all those professionals , who despite being beleagured by the arid ' what works' agenda , continue to try to apply 'values based' practice . This is not something that can be roboticised via a set of standards or protocols, and enforced via a rigid performance management approach; The potential for 'unintended consequences' of poorly thought-through legislation remains a significant concern, and I believe the youth rehabilitation order once imnplemeted , will further worsen the situation. The phrase 'hoist by their own petard' would seem to be appropriate to describe the govt's position here. |