Current Responses to Youth Racially Motivated Offending
| Author | Hannah Smithson,Aidan Wilcox,Leanne Monchuk |
| Published date | 01 August 2010 |
| Date | 01 August 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1473225410369295 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Youth Justice
Current Responses to Youth Racially
10(2) 157–173
© The Author(s) 2010
Motivated Offending
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225410369295
yjj.sagepub.com
Hannah Smithson
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Aidan Wilcox
University of Huddersfield, UK
Leanne Monchuk
University of Huddersfield, UK
Abstract
This article presents the findings from a study for the Youth Justice Board (YJB) to identify the prevalence
of racially motivated offending (RMO) amongst young people and Youth Justice System responses to it. The
article focuses on programmes for RMO and presents the findings of a survey of Youth Offending Teams
(YOTs) and secure establishments to establish the extent of provision for RMO, along with interviews with
practitioners and young people. The findings demonstrate the majority of provision is multifaceted but also
ad hoc and does not address the evidence on the causes of RMO. The multiplicity of causes needs to be
reflected in the interventions designed to tackle it.
Keywords
programmes, racially motivated offending, typologies, Youth Offending Teams
Introduction
The issue of youth RMO is high on the political agenda partly because of recent high
profile crimes (for example, the murder of Zahid Mubarek in 2000) and because the
number of young people being convicted and cautioned of such offences has increased
substantially in recent years (see Wilcox et al., 2008). This article reports on research
conducted on behalf of the YJB which sought to look at the nature and extent of youth
RMO and explore responses to it within the youth justice system. This article discusses
the extent to which current work with young people takes account of what is known about
the specific and general causes of racist crime.
Corresponding author:
Dr Hannah Smithson, Manchester Metropolitan University, Sociology Department, Geoffrey Manton Building, Rosamond
St West, Manchester, M15 6LL, UK.
Email: h.l.smithson@mmu.ac.uk
158
Youth Justice 10(2)
Until relatively recently, policy responses to racial unrest and racist crime have been
small scale, and it was an area which was not a political priority. Racist crime was not
monitored, and as a result there was no accurate picture of its extent or impact (Dixon and
Ray, 2007). However, since the mid-1990s, the policy and operational landscape has
changed considerably in response to high profile racial incidents such as the murder of
Stephen Lawrence in 1993, riots and disturbances arising from conflicts between racially
demarcated communities in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham and concerns about insecurity
following the events of 9/11 and the impact of this on cohesion between communities.
The Home Office define RMO as a crime which is perceived by the victim or any other
person as being motivated by prejudice or hate. The legal framework for tackling racially
motivated offending is contained within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (sections 28–32).
The Act took a series of existing offences including: criminal damage, assault without
injury and harassment to which a racially aggravated charge could be applied. For exam-
ple, criminal damage which had a racist element could be charged as racially aggravated
criminal damage. Furthermore these aggravated offences attract higher tariffs under the
Act than their non-racially motivated equivalents.
Interventions to Tackle Racially Motivated Offending
Following the legislative and policy responses described above, there have been moves in
probation to develop programmes for racially motivated offenders. However, according to
Smith (2006), interventions to tackle racially motivated offending amongst adults in the
United Kingdom have ‘developed slowly and unevenly’. This appears in part to be due to
the relatively small numbers of racially motivated adult offenders being dealt with by the
Probation Service (HMIP, 2005). Dixon (2002) reported that a sub group set up by the
Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel found a general lack of availability and use of
resources to work with racially motivated offenders (Smith, 2006) and a need to improve
the confidence, capability and motivation of probation staff to work with racially moti-
vated offenders (HMIP, 2005; Sibbitt, 1997).
The situation in youth justice is, if anything, even more inconsistent. There appears to
have been even less emphasis on developing interventions with racially motivated offend-
ers within the youth justice system than with adult offenders on probation. One of the few
studies of projects aimed at challenging the views of young people toward race was con-
ducted by Lemos (2005). This study looked at five projects: two school-based educational
projects; one voluntary and informal learning initiative; one neighbourhood based foot-
ball project involving professional football players as role models; and one intensive one-
to-one programme involving young offenders. Thus, only one of the projects was aimed
at racially motivated offenders, and most of those participating in the projects did not in
fact hold racist views. There was some evidence, according to Lemos, that projects had a
positive impact on attitudes towards others, but less so for those whose views were
entrenched. Lemos concluded that projects were more likely to succeed where they were well
structured, involved a range of activities and presenters, and brought young people from
different groups together to build trust and empathy.
Smithson et al.
159
Overall, the focus in relation to young people appears to have been on prevention through
education or general youth work. The Youth Justice Board commissioned Communities
that Care to undertake a comprehensive review of risk and protective factors associated
with youth crime and programmes that addressed risk factors and promoted protective
factors to reduce offending (Youth Justice Board, 2001). However, the applicability of
these risk and protective factors in relation to racially motivated offending remains largely
untested by research.
Developing a Rationale for Interventions
A number of writers have identified factors which appear to be related to racially moti-
vated offending, and it is possible to categorize these influences according to the level at
which they operate. In proposing an overarching framework we draw upon Goudrian et al.’s
(2004) work on the role of social context in the decision to report crime. They propose that
causal factors can be assigned to one of three levels of influence – the micro, meso and
macro. Although their framework was not designed as a means of categorizing the differ-
ent influences on racially motivated offending, it is a useful framework to adopt.
The model we propose suggests that there are a range of interrelated normative factors
which contribute to, and in some instances legitimize, racially motivated offending. As
Ray and Smith (2004: 681) argue ‘to explain racist violence we need to think in terms of
not a single issue but of multiple issues of bias, and cultures of violence, exclusions and
marginalisation’. In our proposed model these work at three levels:
Micro level – Individual beliefs;
Meso level – The influence of: family; friends; peers; the local neighbourhood and
community; and the actions of local public agencies such as local authorities, police
and local media;
Macro level – The actions of Government and other national bodies including political
parties and the media.
The implications of such a model for dealing with racially motivated offending are important.
Effective interventions will need to explicate the various causal factors involved, some of
which may vary according to the geographical or temporal location of the offending. If inter-
ventions only try to deal with individual level factors (e.g. alienation, beliefs) without address-
ing wider family, peer and societal influences, then their efficacy is likely to be limited.
A number of writers have suggested that racially motivated offenders can be catego-
rized according to the basis of their motivations. Levin and McDevitt (1993) argued that
hate crime offenders could be divided into three different categories: i) thrill seekers; ii)
defenders and iii) mission offenders. These three typologies were derived from undertak-
ing interviews with the members of the police, victims and hate crime offenders them-
selves (McDevitt et al., 2002). However, they later added a fourth category to the typology;
the ‘retaliatory’ offender.
The four typologies are described below:
160
Youth Justice 10(2)
Thrill seekers – who commit hate crime offences for the thrill and excitement. Thrill
seekers chose the target because the offender perceived the victim was in some way
significantly different from the offender. Dixon and Court (2003) have suggested
that such offenders are influenced by a wider peer group ‘often getting drawn into
violence without any regard to the victim.’ In addition ‘they may consider their activ-
ities territorial rather than racist’.
Defenders – committed hate crime offences in order to protect the offender’s neigh-
bourhood from outsiders or intruders. Dixon and Court (2003) referred to ‘reactive
offenders’ as individuals who were older than thrill seekers who had ‘a sense of griev-
ance and believe that they are acting to protect a perceived threat to their way of life.’
Retaliatory offenders – committed hate crime offences in response to a hate crime
against...
To continue reading
Request your trial