Book Review: Vulnerable Inside: Children in Secure and Penal Settings, Locked in - Locked out: the Experience of Young Offenders out of Society and in Prison
| Author | Tim Bateman |
| DOI | 10.1177/147322540200200310 |
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Barry Goldson, Vulnerable Inside: Children in Secure and Penal Settings, The
Children’s Society, London, 2002, £14.95 Pb, 1-899783-43-1.
Angela Neustatter, Locked in –Locked out: the Experience of Young Offenders
out of Society and in Prison, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London, 2002,
£8.95 Pb, 0-903319-88-8.
Reviewed by: Tim Bateman, Senior Policy Development Officer, Nacro.
Two books with a common theme: children and young people detained in custody or otherwise
deprived of their liberty. Both publications moreover, are sympathetic to the view that locking
up increasing numbers of children and young people is a matter for concern. Yet the books
are quite dissimilar and each is likely to appeal to different audiences (or perhaps the same
audience at different times).
In part, the difference is one of scope. Neustatter takes as her subject children and young
people, up to the age of 21, in prison. Accordingly, she is able to comment on how the
development of the juvenile secure estate has impacted negatively on conditions in custody for
young people over the age of 18. Goldson concentrates his study on 15-16 year old boys
remanded to prison, and children placed in local authority secure accommodation through
family proceedings. This focus enables him to consider the relationship between those detained
on (alleged) offending and welfare grounds. However, the most significant difference between
the two books derives from the respective backgrounds of the authors.
Neustatter is a journalist whose motivation for writing the book was learning that England
and Wales imprisons more of its under-21 population than any other European country.
Unsurprisingly, hers is a journalistic account aimed primarily at a non-specialist readership. The
book is least successful when attempting an overview of the criminal justice process. The detail
sometimes betrays the author’s lack of familiarity with the system: youth offending teams would
be surprised to learn, for instance, that they are obliged to prepare a detention and training
order sentence plan before the young person arrives at prison! This is a relatively minor niggle,
however. The book is much stronger when dealing with the backgrounds and multiple
disadvantages of those who receive custody. The narrative, frequently interspersed with young
people’s stories told in their own words, poses two crucial questions. First, to what extent can
young people who offend legitimately be regarded as victims? Second, is prison an appropriate
response to the problems displayed by such young people? While properly acknowledging wide
variations in the quality of regimes, Neustatter presents a powerful picture of the YOI as an
environment which is inevitably fearful, potentially violent and damaging, and frequently
hopeless. Overall, the book represents an eloquent addition to the literature questioning the
use of custody, and it provides a wealth of real life examples in which to ground the argument.
Goldson, by contrast, is an academic specialising in youth justice. His book records the
results of 12 months of research focusing on the vulnerabilities of children in locked
institutions, and the means by which they are addressed. He too allows ample scope for the
children to speak for themselves, but he also advances our knowledge of the subject in several
important directions. Accordingly, his book has more to offer those with a specialist interest.
To take a specific example, Goldson examines the assessment procedures, developed by the
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, to protect vulnerable boys subject to custodial
remand and he finds them disturbingly wanting. Thus in only 28 per cent of cases audited for
the study, did the YOI receive both an ASSET form and a post court report, despite the fact
that the Board regards these as essential elements of an assessment to minimise vulnerability.
In 19 per cent of cases, the institution received neither document. These stark figures are
located within the context of the inevitable practical limitations of assessments undertaken by
YOI staff at the point of reception.
Book Reviews180
To continue reading
Request your trial