The Continuing Chronology of Confusion
| Author | Tim Hillier,Gavin Dingwall,Irene Antonopoulos |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018318790135 |
| Published date | 01 October 2018 |
| Date | 01 October 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Continuing Chronology
of Confusion: Crime Prevention,
Welfare and the Why of
Youth Justice
Irene Antonopoulos
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Gavin Dingwall
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Tim Hillier
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Abstract
International human rights law states that child well-being must be paramount. The aims of the
Youth Justice System in England and Wales should reflect this, but the present system fails to
do so as its aims are various and lack coherence. This article argues that this incoherence
emanates from an apparent conflict between welfare and crime prevention. The authors argue
that this dichotomy is false if one recognises that crime will only be prevented by prioritising
the welfare and well-being of the child offender. Adopting this approach would satisfy inter-
national obligations and reduce the risk of offending and reoffending.
Keywords
Youth justice, children’s rights, sentencing aims, crime prevention, welfare
Introduction
Until the start of the 19th century, little distinction was made between adult and child offenders.
A separate approach to non-adult offenders emerged gradually throughout the 19th century. The Chil-
dren Act 1908 formalised a separate court for those under the age of 16. In the same year, legislation was
introduced to ensure ‘better provision for the prevention of crime and for that purpose to provide for the
Corresponding author:
Gavin Dingwall, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
E-mail: gdingwall@dmu.ac.uk
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(5) 402–419
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318790135
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
reformation of young offenders’.
1
The 20th century witnessed a continuing struggle between ‘preven-
tion’ and ‘reformation’ as child welfare and crime prevention alternated as the primary purpose of youth
justice.
Concerns over the rising crime rates during the First World War recognised by the Maloney Com-
mittee
2
led to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The 1933 Act stipulates that the welfare of the
child is paramount when any court, including a criminal court, deals with a child. As Gelsthorpe and
Morris point out, ‘This marked a departure from the ideas of “criminal justice,” “crime control” and full
criminal responsibility for behaviour towards a focus on welfare and treatment to suit the needs of each
individual child’.
3
This welfare approach chimed with the emergence of the post-war welfare state. As youth crime
increased during the 1950s, the immediate post-war consensus on crime and punishment issues remained
intact until the 1960s. In 1960, the Ingleby Committee recommended that the age of criminal respon-
sibility be raised from 8 to 12. A compromise was reached with the Children and Young Persons Act
1963 which provided that the age should be raised to 10. More radical proposals for youth justice were
made in the Labour Party Study Group’s report in 1964 (Crime: A Challenge to Us All). Two White
Papers followed The Child, the Family and the Young Offender in 1965 and the revised, less radical
Children in Trouble 1965. The legislative outcome was the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
The Act represented ‘the most developed application of welfare principles to criminal justice ever
seen in an English statute’.
4
It was, however, only partially implemented and arguably represents a lost
opportunity to revolutionise the Youth Justice System. Downes and Morgan refer to the 1970 General
Election as the ‘real watershed’ in the politics of ‘law and order’. Rising crime rates, the ending of full
employment and the post-war economic boom, and a sense of growing political, social and economic
crisis led to the collapse of the consensus on law and order and a move by all political parties away from
a welfare approach to youth justice. By the 1979 General Election, law and order was one of the primary
political battlegrounds. According to the Conservative manifesto of 1979, children who offended need a
‘short, sharp shock’. By the early 1990s, the two main parties were competing to appear the toughest on
crime.
5
The 1997 ‘No More Excuses’ report stated that
In the past, the youth justice system has suffered from changing policy priorities and a lack of consistent
direction.The Government believes that therehas been confusion about the purposeof the youth justice system
and the principlesthat should govern the way in which youngpeople are dealt with by youth justice agencies.
Concerns about the welfare of the young person have too often been seen as in conflict with the aims of
protecting the public, punishing offences and preventing offending. This confusion creates real practical
difficulties for practitioners and has contributed to the loss of public confidence in the youth justice system.
6
It then proceeded to discuss the obligations that the UK has under the International Convention on
Children’s Rights rejecting the notion that there is ‘any conflict between protecting the welfare of a
young offender and preventing that individual from offending again’.
7
The White Paper, although
1. Prevention of Crime Act 1908.
2. Home Office, Report of the Departmental Committee of the Treatment of Young Offenders (HMSO: London, 1927).
3. L. Gelsthorpe and A. Morris, ‘Juvenile Justice 1945–1992’ in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds), The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology (OUP: Oxford, 1994) 952.
4. A. E. Bottoms and S. Stevenson, ‘What Went Wrong? Criminal Justice Policy in England and Wales, 1945–70’ in D. Downs
(ed.), Unravelling Criminal Justice (Palgrave Macmillan: London, 1992) 36.
5. D. Downs and R. Morgan, ‘The Skeletons in the Cupboard: The Politics of Law and Order at the Turn of the Millennium’ in M.
Maguire, R. Morgan, and R. Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd edn (OUP: Oxford, 2002).
6. Home Office, No More Excuses: A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales (Home Office: London, 1997)
ch. 2.
7. Ibid.
Antonopoulos et al. 403
To continue reading
Request your trial