Young Offenders, ‘Secure Colleges’ and Reforming Criminals
| Published date | 01 June 2015 |
| Date | 01 June 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018315586168 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Young Offenders, ‘Secure
Colleges’ and Reforming
Criminals
1
Zia Akhtar
Gray’s Inn, UK
Abstract
The UK government has decided on a policy goal that is set out in the Criminal Justice and
Courts Bill 2014. This goal is to invest in ‘Secure Colleges’, which are institutions planned to
make young criminals ‘better citizens not better criminals’. The question is: What is the role of
punishment: deterrence, incapacitation or rehabilitation? This article considers the juvenile
justice system in Scotland with reference to the objectives set out in the Kilbrandon Report in
1964 and evaluates the perspective of early criminologists who state that offenders exercise a
free choice in embarking on a life of crime. It is also evaluated in the light of those empirical
studies that expose the harsh discipline and control in prisons as ‘oppressive’ and not likely to
reform the offenders. The UK policy regarding young offenders underwent a change after the
James Bulger murder in 1993 and became a deterrence-based approach. This has led to
measures on both sides of the border which were retributive, such as the lowering of the age of
criminal responsibility and the early intervention of probation services. This article considers
the modern themes of juvenile justice and argues that the ‘Secure Colleges’ will be a corrective
institution that should inculcate a more informed policy towards reintegration for the young
offenders so that they emerge from the criminal justice system as improved citizens after
completing their sentence.
Keywords
Young offender institutions, justice, welfare, rehabilitation
The Scottish approach to juveniles in detention has stressed the need for justice and welfare in order to reha-
bilitate them in the community.
1. Author details: Zia Akhtar is a member of Gray’s Inn. He is a writer on crime and criminal theory. His articles have appeared in
the Justice of the Peace; Judicial Review; Bloomsbury’s Criminal Lawyer; British Journal of Community Justice; Contem-
porary Issues in Law Journal, European Journal of Law, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Amicus Curiae, Financial Fraud
Law Reports, etc.
Corresponding author:
Zia Akhtar, 28-C Ebor Place, Leeds LS6 1NR, UK.
E-mail: pelawgraduate@gmail.com
The Journal of Criminal Law
2015, Vol. 79(3) 211–228
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018315586168
clj.sagepub.com
Introduction
The determination of whether the prison system works for the benefit of the offender or makes them a
worse perpetrator is a matter of serious concern. The time that offenders spend in detention can be a for-
mative period for them and affect their future conduct. This is an important issue which is built into the
framework of the young offender institutions and is of current debate based on the proposals in the Crim-
inal Justice and Courts Bill 2014.
2
The issue is of concern for the Scottish criminal justice system
because of the novel policies that have been followed in juvenile justice and the policy guidelines that
have been implemented following the publication in Scotland of the Kilbrandon Report in 1964.
In Scotland youth justice policy was influenced by this report, which is a reference point for crimin-
ologists and planners.
3
It was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland in April
1964 with a view to infusing values into the system of youth justice and to achieving them by consensus.
Its conclusions were based on the reintegration of juvenile offenders into society and it was committed to
a rehabilitation model within the context of each young offender’s family background.
It served as a benchmark for ‘justice’ and ‘welfare’ as being two crucial issues when dealing with
juvenile justice and recognised individual circumstances as a significant factor in committing offences.
When evaluating ‘children in trouble’, whether on account of offending behaviour, truancy, exposure or
neglect and/or abuse, the Kilbrandon Committee stated, ‘The basic similarity of underlying situation far
outweighs the differences... the normal up-bringing processes having, for whatever reason, fallenshort’.
4
There is a need to synthesise the research conducted by penologists to determine if there are inherent
factors in crimeand if the approach advocatedby the report is still valid. Thistakes account of the element
of choice available to the offender beforethey embark on crime. The effectsof prison also have to be con-
sidered in order to determine if they aggravate the prisoner’s tendency to commit crimes if conditions are
oppressiveor brutal. This is an exercisethat can only be conducted by examiningthe statistics, the trajectory
of the offenderpopulation andcrimes by juvenile criminalsin order to assess thebest future course of action.
This is necessary in order to ascertain the need for the creation of ‘better citizens’ rather than ‘better
criminals’ set out in the preamble of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2014. This legislation will cre-
ate new institutions called ‘Secure Colleges’, an important initiative for young offenders who are in the
formative stage of their development when they are convicted and sent into prison. The introduction of
the ‘Secure Colleges’ represents a change from the policy of the Conservative government when they
adopted the ‘sharp, short, shock’ treatment of young offenders in the 1970s.
5
This was a form of
2. The Bill makes provision about how offenders are dealt with before and after conviction, and amends: the offence of possession
of extreme pornographic images; the proceedings and powers of courts and tribunals; judicial review; and connected purposes:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/criminaljusticeandcourts.html (accessed 29 April 2014). The provision which
relates to Scotland, the Rehabilitation of Offenders section, deals with an amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
1974 (the 1974 Act) which will resolve a legislative competence issue. In the course of implementation of the Children’s
Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (the 2011 Act) the Scottish government encountered a difficulty with part of the package of
reforms around the treatment of children for the purposes of rehabilitation of offenders and disclosure. The difficulty stemmed
from Scottish Ministers’ lack of competence to make an Order under Sched. 3 to the 1974 Act, setting out exclusions and
exceptions to the general rule that spent Alternatives to Prosecution (ATPs) from children’s hearings do not need to be dis-
closed: Memorandum for the Bill from the Scottish Parliament, 27 August 2014, available at http://www.scottish.gov.uk/about/
Government/Sewel/Sewel/Memospdf/Series4/CriminalJusticeCourtsb111.pdf (accessed 29 April 2015).
3. Professor Stewart Asquith in the Preface to the latest version of this report states, ‘The Kilbrandon Report was, and still remains,
one of the most influential policy statements on how a society should deal with ‘‘children in trouble’’’. S. Asquith (ed.), The
Kilbrandon Report. (Children and Young Persons Scotland: Edinburgh, 1995 (HMSO: Edinburgh, 1964)) vi, available at http://
www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47049/0023863.pdf (accessed 29 April 2015).
4. Ibid. at 9.
5. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 that amended the 1961 Act reflected the notion that was then taking hold at the time, that young
offenders are responsible for their actions and, even with some measure of welfare, punishment is important in deterring others.
See Conservative General Election Manifesto 1979, available at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110858 (accessed
29 April 2015).
212 The Journal of Criminal Law 79(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial