The Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour: fresh start or false dawn?
| Pages | 77-85 |
| Published date | 17 June 2011 |
| Date | 17 June 2011 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17466661111149376 |
| Author | Barry Goldson |
| Subject Matter | Education,Health & social care,Sociology |
The Independent Commission on
Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour:
fresh start or false dawn?
Barry Goldson
Abstract
Purpose – In 2010, ‘ ‘The Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour’’
published a major report. This paper critically assesses the report by placing it within a context of
juvenile/youth justice policy reform extending over the last 50 years.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based upon national and international policy analysis
and comparative research.
Findings – In recent years the persistent politicisation of youth crime and an obsession with ‘‘tough’’
responses to child offenders in England and Wales have produced one of the most problematicyouth
justice regimes in the Western world. Against this backdrop the report of the Independent Commission
on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour is designed to inf‌luence policy reform. By drawing on an
international evidence base, this paper assesses the merits of the Commission’s proposals and the
extent to which they signify a ‘‘fresh start’’ or a ‘‘false dawn’ ’.
Originality/value – The paper argues that international evidence, alongside the provisions of both
global and pan-European human rights standards, provides a compelling case for raising the age of
criminal responsibility in England and Wales, for developing youth justice policy and practice in
accordance with the principle of minimum necessary intervention and for abolishing prisonservice and
private sector penal custody for children and young people.
Keywords Social reform, Youth, Policy, Social policy, Justice
Paper type General review
Introduction
Over the last 50 years, developments in youth justice policyin England and Wales can broadly
be understood with reference to three key phases. First, policy formation during the 1960s and
1970s was characterised primarily by welfare priorities. Second, by the end of the 1970s and
the beginning of the 1980s, faith in ‘‘welfarism’’ had receded and a conceptual emphasis on
justice imperatives came to the fore. Throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, therefore,
key legislative and policy milestones directed a movement ‘‘back to justice’ ’. Third, for an
unusually protracted period between 1993 and 2010, youth crime was persistently politicised.
This gave rise to frenetic and incoherent policy making in youth justice that, in many respects,
eclipsed conventional ‘‘welfare’’ and ‘‘justice’ ’ imperatives.
If the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – each
introduced by the conservative government – signaled a more retributive and punitive
orientation, three successive New Labour administrations effectively ushered in a ‘ ‘new youth
justice’’ (Goldson, 2000). The pace and reach of legislative activity during the period
1997-2010 produced an almost perpetual stream of statute and fundamentally restructured
the organisational architecture of the youth justice system. Additionally, throughoutthe same
period the broad corpus of new legislation was laced with a seemingly endless sequence
of consultation papers, government ‘‘action plans’’, ‘ ‘task force’’ reports, ‘‘pilot’’ schemes and
practice experiments.
DOI 10.1108/17466661111149376 VOL. 6 NO. 2 2011, pp. 77-85, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
PAGE 77
Barry Goldson, School
of Sociology and Social
Policy, University of
Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
To continue reading
Request your trial