Editorial
| Author | Barry Goldson |
| DOI | 10.1177/147322540200200201 |
| Published date | 01 August 2002 |
| Date | 01 August 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Editorial
The first two articles in this issue of Youth Justice focus upon the pre-emptive interventions
and/or the net-widening effect of the ‘new’ youth justice in England and Wales.
Charlotte Walsh examines the question of child curfews. Walsh critically engages with the
provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001,
that have recently served to extend curfew powers. She argues that, in many respects, such
provisions are symptomatic of a consolidating ambivalence to children and young people per
se and, as such, they amount to more than a response to youth crime, ‘disorder’ and ‘anti-social
behaviour’. Indeed, by drawing upon evidence from the USA and Scotland, Walsh presents a
persuasive case that child curfews are ineffective, and even counter-productive, when applied
as a measure of youth crime prevention. Furthermore, by taking account of the European
Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, the question of rights
violations is introduced. Such violations are likely to be experienced differentially, and Walsh
argues that curfew powers are, and will be, applied in ways which target poor neighbourhoods
with specific racialised and gendered effect. The practical impact of curfew powers is not
limited to children and young people of course. Indeed, curfews also comprise an intrusion
into the broader domain of ‘family life’, and in this respect the rights and the independent
authority of parents and carers are also compromised.
Indeed, the complex issue of state intervention into ‘family life’ comprises the analytical
framework for the article written by myself and Janet Jamieson. We locate the interventions of
modern youth justice systems into ‘family life’ – predicated upon a construction of ‘parenting
deficit’ – within wider historical, theoretical, policy, material and applied contexts. Our primary
argument is that contemporary parenting interventions are derived in long-established concepts
of ‘pathological’ and ‘dysfunctional’ families, and are driven by moralistic constructs that are
abstracted from material realities. Moreover, we subject the benign claims that are made in
respect of the Parenting Order (introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and
implemented across England and Wales in June 2000), to critical inspection. At a time when
mainstream family support services fail to provide anything but the most residual of services
to families ‘in need’, we argue that youth justice parenting interventions ultimately amount to
an extension of the punitive reach.
Andrew Rutherford discusses some of the key youth justice policy and practice
developments that have emerged over the past twenty years or more in England and Wales,
and argues that three ‘phases’ are discernible within this period. ‘Phase One’ (1982–1991) can
be characterised by the imperatives of minimal intervention, diversion and decarceration. ‘Phase
Two’ (1992–present), has been witness to the emergence of more interventionist and punitive
measures, underpinned by ‘no more excuses’ sentiments. ‘Phase Three’ is just dawning
according to Rutherford, and it comprises a moment in which ‘tough’ approaches to crime
might be ameliorated by the panoply of policy initiatives that are developing alongside the
‘social inclusion’ agenda. In this respect Rutherford argues that a series of protective ‘shields’
may insulate children and young people from the worse excesses of the criminal justice process,
and the youth justice system in England and Wales can draw benefit from more ‘progressive’
policy and practice that has developed in other parts of the UK and Europe.
Nigel Stone’s ‘legal commentary’ addresses a ‘miscellany’ of issues in respect of remand and
custodial sentencing, Marcus Roberts’ pages provide the latest youth justice news, and this issue
of the journal concludes, as is customary, with a review of books together with notice of others
received and those recently published.
Barry Goldson
The University of Liverpool
To continue reading
Request your trial