Holding Parents to Account: Tough on Children, Tough on the Causes of Children?
| Author | Laurence Koffman |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00417.x |
JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 35, NUMBER 1, MARCH 2008
ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 113±30
Holding Parents to Account: Tough on Children,
Tough on the Causes of Children?
Laurence Koffman*
This paper examines the intellectual basis for New Labour's policy of
holding parents to account for the misconduct of their children. It
argues that the government has relied too heavily on an ill-defined
conception of responsibility, whilst failing to address the underlying
causes of anti-social behaviour. By way of illustration, the govern-
ment's strategy is considered in the light of the author's empirical
study of anti-social behaviour measures and their impact on families in
a disadvantaged area.
INTRODUCTION
A major influence on the incoming New Labour government, in 1997, was
the communitarian philosophy propounded by a group of writers in the
United States in the early 1990s.
1
The shoring up of communities, the need
to reverse civic decline and to strengthen families, were all important
objectives of the new government's `third way' approach.
2
The assertion that
individual rights and entitlements have to be balanced by social respon-
sibilities was a central tenet of the communitarian movement and, in turn,
this was a recurring theme of the government's statements on social policy.
The communitarians talked about the need to `restore the moral voice of
communities',
3
influencing New Labour's view of social democracy, which
has been described as being concerned `primarily with moral values as
opposed to public policies'.
4
According to the government, individuals are
113
ß2008 The Author. Editorial organization ß2008 Cardiff University Law School. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
*Sussex Law School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QQ,
England
l.koffman@sussex.ac.uk
1 For a detailed exposition of communitarian theory, by one of its leading proponents,
seeA.Etzioni, The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the
Communitarian Agenda (1993).
2 See A. Giddens, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (1998) 78±80.
3 Etzioni, op. cit., n. 1, p. 10.
4 See M. Bevir, New Labour: A Critique (2005) 54.
not autonomous, but rather they are influenced by, and a part of, the
communities in which they live. In return for the support of their community,
individuals are required to show a commitment to its core or shared values
and behave with decency and `respect' towards others.
5
The (then) Prime
Minister, Tony Blair, in his introduction to the government's Respect Action
Plan, stated that `stable families and strong, cohesive communities' are
essential for individual potential to be developed, and for social and
economic well-being to be established.
6
Another preoccupation of the new government in 1997 was to avoid the
accusation, aimed at previous Labour administrations, that it was `soft' in its
response to crime in general and youth offending in particular.
7
In its flag-
ship legislation, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
8
the government signalled
its unwillingness to excuse offending on the basis of social disadvantage and
youthful immaturity,
9
and instead emphasized the impact of crime and anti-
social behaviour on victims and local communities.
10
This legislation,
among other things, effectively lowered the age of criminal responsibility to
ten (section 34), and introduced a new system of reprimands and warnings to
make the practice of cautioning young offenders considerably tougher
(sections 65 and 66).
11
Even more controversially, the Act introduced the
anti-social behaviour order (section 1).
12
Although this order (the `ASBO')
may be imposed on any person aged ten or over, it is clear that it is used
primarily against children and young people,
13
which is a matter of
114
5 See the White Paper, Respect and Responsibility ± Taking a Stand Against Anti-
Social Behaviour (2003; Cm. 5778) and the Home Office, Respect Action Plan
(2006) 2.
6 id. (2006), at p. 1. Also see the ministerial foreword to id. (2003): `. .. our aim is a
``something for something'' society where we treat one another with respect and
where we all share responsibility for taking a stand against what is unacceptable.'
7 Lord Windlesham, Dispensing Justice: Responses to Crime, Vol. 4 (2001) ch. 3.
8 See, further, J. Fionda, `New Labour, Old Hat: Youth Justice and the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998' [1999] Crim. Law Rev. 36.
9 The youth justice reforms of New Labour have been described as part of a
`conceptual shift within which children in trouble are increasingly regarded, and
thus treated, as ``offenders'' first, and ``children'' second': see B. Goldson, `Recon-
figured ``Justice'': Reconstructed Childhood' (2001) Howard League Magazine 5.
10 See, further, Home Office, Tackling Youth Crime: A Consultation Paper (1997) and
Home Office, No More Excuses ± A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in
England and Wales (1997; Cm. 3809).
11 See L. Koffman and G. Dingwall, `The Diversion of Young Offenders: A
Proportionate Response?' (2007) 2 Web J. of Current Legal Issues.
12 See, further, A. Ashworth et al., `Neighbouring on the Oppressive: the Govern-
ment's ``Anti-Social Behaviour Order'' Proposals' (1998) 16 Crim. Justice 7±14; A.
Ashworth, `Social Control and ``Anti-Social Behaviour'': the Subversion of Human
Rights' (2004) 120 Law Q. Rev. 263; A. Brown, `Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime
Control and Social Control' (2004) 43 Howard J. 2003; E. Burney, Making People
Behave: Anti-Social Behaviour, Politics and Policy (2005).
13 See S. Campbell, A Review of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (2002) 8; and Burney,
id., pp. 97±99.
ß2008 The Author. Editorial organization ß2008 Cardiff University Law School
To continue reading
Request your trial