Ways To Tackle Crimes Among The Young People

‘In order to effectively tackle youth crime and deviance, criminalisation and punishment is the most appropriate response’

This essay is going to explore whether criminalisation and punishment is the most appropriate response to tackle youth crime and deviance. This debate will be explored as to whether punishment works or not and will also be applied to a case study, knife crime. It is questioned that once youths commit a crime and then become involved with the criminal justice system (CJS), they are trapped in this vicious circle and are more than likely to keep re-offending and have sustained contact with the CJS. However, would approaches from the local youth justice agencies who aim to help and rehabilitate the youth and engage them to re-socialise in the community help solve knife crime? This essay is also going to discuss how to effectively tackle youth crime and deviance, as to whether criminalisation and punishment is the most appropriate response or not. Various arguments will be debated throughout the essay and to summarise, it will conclude the argument and discuss the key findings.

Should youth crime and deviance have a punitive response, or should it be dealt with by different means? Are children able to think cognitively about what they have done and understand between right and wrong? Punishment towards children has shown not to work, evidence shows that they adapt to avoid the source of punishment. For example, the situation they are in, if this changes in anyway the inclination to take part in the behaviour will reassert itself. However, receiving a punishment for a crime could be an opportunity for the individuals to learn and grow from their actions. Victims and communities feel empowered as it shows the offender is recognising what they have done. During their sentence they will take part in a restorative justice program, this will show how they are remorse for their actions and what harm they have caused towards the victim. The restorative justice program will also help to rebuild them into the civilisation which they have caused damage too (Chairman and Collins, 2015).

The punitive response could link to the right realist perspective, this perspective is about individuals free will and how they make the choice to commit the crime. It was associated by Wilson (1975) and Murray (1990) who suggests the individual will weigh up the benefits against the disadvantages of their actions when committing a crime. However, do children have the cognitive response to be able to weigh up the benefits and drawbacks of what they are doing, this links to the ‘Doli Incapax’, children under the age of 14 incapable of doing evil. It was said that children between the ages of 7 and 14 were unable to judge criminal behaviour unless trial could prove otherwise. However, in 1998 ‘Doli Incapax’ was abolished, meaning children aged 7 or above were able to be arrested and sent to prison. Suggesting they know that committing a crime is wrong. It was abolished with the intention to “stop making excuses for children who offend” (Home Office, 1997).

On the other hand, criminalisation and punishment is not always the correct response when dealing with young children, research shows that in 2018 40.9% of youths re-offended once released from prison, if criminalisation and punishment was working this 40.9% re-offend rate would be lower (Youth Justice Board / Ministry of Justice, 2019). Instead rehabilitation programs and education should play a big part in their early life stages, potentially if they are growing up in an unstable family environment such as foster care or no father figure to look up too. Having a dysfunctional family can lead to individuals becoming rebellious and committing criminal activity. If intervention and education take’s place early in the child’s life, it will guide and teach them skills to be able to be part of the community. A child being punished will affect them massively, they will become ‘labelled’ and they will feel the need to keep up to this label because that is who they are known as. The Labelling Theory helps to encourage youths to accept their deviant motives and self-identity (Kroska, A., Lee, J. D. and Carr, N. T. 2017). Also relating to the social learning theory, what they engage with in day to day life will also encourage them to lead a bad lifestyle. They need a positive sense of identity to be able to lead a normal crime free life.

The children’s Act 2004 launched a program called “Every Child Matters: Change for Children” in bid to help children from an early age. The government created ideas and policies which stress of how important it is to intervene with children at the early stages of their life to help prevent them from developing problems in their later life. The program ensures that children must have a relationship with their parents, children and professionals. It also focuses on preventing problems that could develop later in their life relating to education, unemployment which can all attribute to leading a life in crime. The program created a detailed picture of factors which contributed to poor lifestyles, these are parental unemployment, family living in poor conditions. Poor parenting, parents not bringing the child up correctly. Lack of education and not having the correct education. It was argued that the more risk factors that children came across, more than likely it would lead to negative outcomes (Parton, N. 2008).

Children can commit crimes for no particular reason however, there are certain circumstances which can contribute to a child committing a crime. this can relate to the Left Realism Theory, developed by Lea and Young (1984) and Currie (1985). This theory is based on the poor and the disadvantage, they see themselves being a disadvantage compared to others which causes them to commit a crime (Stenson and Cowell, 1991). Circumstances which help encourage this behaviour are having a bad relationship with their family, dislike school or no efficient parental supervision. To prevent this from happening the parents should play a big part of being the role model of the family, they are the most important people in the family and help guide them through the early stages of the child’s life. How the parents behave can have an influence on the child, it can be good or bad and this can lead to a child’s offending behaviour. It is important that parents have a good relationship with their children, can talk with them and can create rules and help encourage the child to stick to those rules (Prior and Paris, 2005).

“In England and Wales there were around 40,100 offences involving a knife or a sharp instrument recorded in the year ending March 2018”. From the year ending March 2011, this is the highest number recorded of offences involving a knife or sharp object within an eight-year period. Knife crime among the youth is becoming a huge problem in the UK, it is becoming a persistent and worrying concern. The disadvantage young people are hugely impacted by knife crime, countless of remedies have been tried over the years but nothing is reducing knife crime among young people (Allen and Audickas, 2018).

Knife crime, a criminal offence which involves a knife or a sharp object. Knife crime is on the rise, it has become a major problem in London among the young black and minority ethnic teenage boys. In 2017-18 there were 168 knife offences for every 100,000 people in London, the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police based in London is worried about the rapid increase of knife crime among the youth and has stated that tackling violence in London is her “priority” (Shaw, 2019). Knife crime among London is related to street violence and robbery, crime data recorded in 2016/17 from the Metropolitan Police indicates that 75% of victims are aged less than 25 years of age and are male. It also shows almost half of the victims are from the black ethnicity background. On the other hand, the data shows that 90% of the offenders were male and 62% were also from a black ethnicity background. Young individuals claim to carry knives as of protection against themselves. (Khan, 2017).

Possession of an offensive weapon is also on the rise among young individuals, individuals say it is to make them “feel safer” however some say to “scare others”. Coming across as a warning “don’t mess with me” I have a weapon. Some state they have been threatened before by gangs, this has encouraged them to carry knives to help them feel safer in their community and to feel protected from other individuals. However, carrying a knife puts their future in danger, there are several legal consequences of carrying a knife, such as four years in prison for carrying a knife even if it is not used. Carrying a knife can give you a criminal record, due to carrying what can be used as a potential weapon. Carrying a knife is a serious offence and knives being carried for self-protection is not a defence. (#knifefree, 2019).

Youths tend to follow other individuals; this suggests that punishment would not work. Linking to the Social Learning Theory, this is known as individuals who observe and learn from the people around them. This theory features the idea of individuals’ association in social connections and argues that anybody in society can be prepared to embrace and pursue examples of wrongdoing and deviation. Frequent interactions between offenders and potential offenders helps build this profile of likeliness for the potential offender to occupy in criminal activities. Social groups like to have an attitude of being ‘tough’ this also helps increase the like hood of them to interiorize criminal frames of minds. Gang members have what is known as a ‘model’, the younger generation focus on these ‘models’ and overtime they begin to copy the behaviour they have observed. They admire these role models and want to become like them, due to not knowing anything different (Bandura, A, and Walters, RH, 1977).

Differential Association Theory developed by Edwin Sutherland (1939) is when individuals learn motives for criminal behaviour through morals, attitudes and methods. This theory is focused on how criminality is learned through social interaction. Criminal behaviour is more prone within intimate personal groups such as gangs. Behaviours from gangs are learnt amongst each other, new gang members learn motives from the leaders, take on the same attitudes and roles this then helps them to grow and become a gang member that other individuals will look up too (Church, Jaggers and Taylor, 2012). Punishment would help discourage the whole criminal behaviour, it would get rid of the ‘gang leader’ and the whole gang would fall apart.

Relating to Differential Association Theory knife crime can also link to masculinity and rational choice perspectives, boys are growing and developing into young men, however, to become masculinity boys build up an open persona (an outside) of being intense, macho and courageous. Relating to knife crime, young men growing up have to be strong and risk takers, they have to support their ‘territory’, keeping their competitive nature aggressive. If among groups they lose their reputation, to gain this reputation back they begin to carry knives to present as ‘tough’ and show off in front of their friends to gain that masculinity back. Rationally they weigh out the benefits of carrying a knife which are high status or respect to the consequences which could be stabbing someone or getting caught. This then also links to social learning theory as they learn from rationally thinking from peers around them (Fades, C., Grimshaw, R., Silvestri, A. and Solomon, E, 2007).

Social Disorganisation Theory associated with Shaw and McKay (1942) focuses on juvenile delinquency in community areas which are lacking sufficient living standards. This theory links youth crime to poor residence, poor well-being and of lower financial status. (Kubrin, C.E. and Weitzer, R, 2003). Poor living conditions and an unstable home can influence a child into the wrong direction. Neighbourhoods are not built adequate for the youth, the youth have nothing to do, they become bored and begin to hang out in groups on ‘street corners’ causing trouble. However, if changes were made in the child’s lifestyle at an early stage punishment would necessarily not be needed in order to change how the child responds to different situations. If they did commit a crime, other responses such as rehabilitation program would be more suitable.

Single mothers bringing their children up with no help from the father is suggested to have an impact on boys growing up, not having that father figure to look up to. Single mothers are stereotyped as living in ‘rough’ areas and claiming benefits, so they don’t have to seek employment. The mother is responsible for the child’s actions as there is no father figure to show boys how to become ‘real men’. They don’t have their father as a role model to look up too (Samolinski, 1988). Research suggests that a father who shows interest towards his son and disproves against crime is a big help towards social control and preventing negative influences which leads the child into the wrong direction. Boys like to feel a sense of love and care and they don’t want to jeopardise this; this helps them stay clear of crime. it is clear that they need to live in a nuclear family (Hall, 2001). However, if a knife crime was committed, the father could play the role of rehabilitating the child, informing them of what is right and what is wrong. Hoping they listen and don’t commit the crime again.

Youths found carrying a knife or have committed a crime involving a knife could take part in education programs. The program would involve facts and figures about the dangers of knives, this would help educate them on what is right and what is wrong about knives. They would then learn from the crime they have committed the dangers of being involved with knives and hopefully learn from their mistakes. They would then grow to lead a normal life and avoid knives since being educated on what damage knives can do. However, education might not always work as knife crime links to social learning theory, learning from others around them. Being educated on the danger of knives to them seeing friends with a knife, some youths will take part so they don’t feel left out even though they know they shouldn’t.

Studies have shown that punishment of carry a knife is not reducing knife crime, to help prevent children going down the criminal route, through the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, the government have increased the prison sentence for carrying a knife without lawful reason from two to four years. This law was changed in hope that doubling the sentence length for possession of a knife would show youths about the dangers of carrying a knife and help discourage would-be offenders. However, it is unclear as to whether this will help reduce youth from carrying knives, it is known to be hard to detect an individual who is carrying a knife therefore it is unknown if tougher sentences will deterrent the youths. Youths between the age of 16 to 17 are more common at knife carrying, the result of this will be young people being sent to prison for a longer sentence. If the increase sentence length has a deterrent effect, knife carrying in public will unlikely be affected, this is due to youths who foresee the consequences of their actions (Eades et al., 2007).

Should children be punished for carrying a knife? Yes, carrying a knife is a major threat towards others. Knives can kill, being punished gives family and friends time to grieve whereas the offender will have time to think about the damage they have caused. During their time in prison they will be put through the restorative justice program which shows them changing and becoming remorse towards what they have done. It will also help rehabilitate them to learn the dangers of knives and being involved in gang activity.

To conclude in order to tackle youth crime, punishment is not the appropriate response, evidence shows that children who are punished through the CJS are likely to re-offend. in order to tackle youth crime, various interventions are needed in the early stages of the child’s life. For example, steady education and a happy relationship with their parents. Knife crime, a major problem among the youth, again early intervention is needed to educate the children about the dangers of knives, however if they have stabbed someone or killed another individual then punishment is needed. This is to show them they can’t get away with what they have done and to give justice to the victim’s family. Overall, it depends on the crime, how often the individual re-offends as to whether interventions would help lead them out of the criminal lifestyle.

Bibliography

1. #knifefree. (2019). Know the risks – #knifefree. [online] Available at: https://www.knifefree.co.uk/know-the-risks/ [Accessed 8 Apr. 2019].
2. Allen, G. and Audickas, L. (2018). Knife crime statistics. [online] Researchbriefings.parliament.uk. Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304#fullreport [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].
3. Bandura, A. and Walters, R.H., 1977. Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
4. Chairman, L. and Collins, J. (2015). Restorative justice in youth offending teams. [online] Restorativejustice.org.uk. Available at: https://restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/kn1b_info_packs%20%282%29%20yot.pdf [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].
5. Church, W., Jaggers, J. and Taylor, J. (2012). Neighborhood, poverty, and negative behavior: An examination of differential association and social control theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(5), pp.1035-1041.
6. Eades, C., Grimshaw, R., Silvestri, A. and Solomon, E. (2007). ‘Knife crime’. 2nd ed. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, pp.28-29.
7. GOV.UK. (2019). Selling, buying and carrying knives. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives [Accessed 14 Apr. 2019].
8. Hall, S. (2001). Crime linked to absent fathers. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal [Accessed 12 Apr. 2019].
9. Home Office (1997). No More Excuses: A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales. London: unknown, p.Chapter 4.
10. Khan, S. (2017). The London Knife Crime Strategy. London: Mayor of London, p.11.
11. Kroska, A., Lee, J. D. and Carr, N. T. (2017) ‘Juvenile Delinquency and Self-Sentiments: Exploring a Labelling Theory Proposition’, Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 98(1), pp. 73–88. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12307.
12. Kubrin, C.E. and Weitzer, R., 2003. New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 40(4), pp.374-402.
13. Parton, N. (2008). The change for children programme in England: Towards the preventive-surveillance state. Journal of Law and Society, 35(1), 166-188.
14. Prior, D. and Paris, A. (2005). Preventing Children’s Involvement in Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour: A literature Review. [online] Research. Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5557/1/RR623.pdf [Accessed 4 May 2019].
15. SAMOLINSKI, C. (1988). Lack of father figure cited in teen crime study. Florida/Metro, p.5.
16. Stenson, K. and Cowell, D. (1991). The Politics of crime control. 1st ed. London: Sage Publications, pp.146-147.
17. Shaw, D. (2019). Ten charts on the rise of knife crime. [online] BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42749089 [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].
18. Youth Justice Board / Ministry of Justice (2019). Youth Justice Statistics 2017/18 England and Wales. London: Government, pp.2 – 5.
19. Wells, J. (2008). Knife crime education. Emergency Nurse, 16(7), pp.30-32.