Youth Justice and Social Inclusion
| Author | Andrew Rutherford |
| Date | 01 August 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/147322540200200204 |
| Published date | 01 August 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Youth Justice and Social Inclusion
Andrew Rutherford
1
Correspondence: Professor Andrew Rutherford, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of
Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ. Email: A.F.RutherfordVSoton.ac.uk
Abstract
In this article three phases of youth justice policy and practice in England and Wales are
considered and the attempt is made to draw out implications for other jurisdictions. The
first two phases are broadly the 1980s, a period characterised by minimal intervention, and
the 1990s a period in which a hardening of criminal justice rhetoric and policy was evident
(or to be a little more precise 1982–1991 and 1992 through to present times). Attaching
dates to the third phase is much more speculative but by mid-2002 there were indications
that it may have been in embryonic form. To the extent that Phase Three is in the making,
its contours and substance of course remain matters of choice by policy-makers and
practitioners, but there are some indications that an emphasis on social inclusion promises
a more progressive set of policy and practice responses for youth justice.
Phase 1: Minimal Intervention
The first phase, the 1980s, was characterised by diversion and decarceration. In 1980 the courts
dealt with one out of every two known juvenile offenders: by 1990 the ratio was one out of
every five. For the courts, this diversionary trend, of course, resulted in a huge shrinkage in
caseloads. For boys, the remarkable decline during the 1980s was from 80,400 to 22,200; and
over the same phase for girls numbers fell from 9,800 to 2,500. In other words, the site of
decision-making shifted decidedly from the courts to the police. Of known offenders in 1980,
44 per cent of boys were formally cautioned by the police; by 1990 the figure was 75 per cent.
For girls the rise in numbers dealt with by means of a formal caution increased during the
1980s from 69 per cent to 89 per cent.
2
Furthermore, minimal intervention also characterised sentencing practice. Given sharply
reduced court caseloads one would have expected a proportionate increase in resort to
custodial dispositions. In fact between 1980–1990 the theme of decarceration was reflected by
declines in both absolute and proportionate terms. For 14–16-year-old boys, the numbers sent
to custody fell during the 1980s from 7400 to 1400 (for girls the decline was from 100 to less
than 50). As a proportion of boys sentenced, the decline was from 12 per cent to 9 per cent
for those receiving custody.
Furthermore, during the 1980s there was a reduction in the number of known juvenile
offenders (the total number of juveniles formally cautioned or convicted). Overall, the decline
between 1980 and 1990 was some 37 per cent (from 175,700 to 111,000). In other words,
measured in terms of known offenders, youth crime fell substantially during the 1980s. When
the turn in criminal policy began to get underway during 1992/93 these data became a matter
of some contention. One of the Police Association’s produced figures for the Home Affairs
Committee, and notwithstanding the above mentioned Home Office statistics, sought to show
that the trend was in fact in the opposite direction. But this innovative statistical adventure
1
Professor of Law and Criminal Policy at the University of Southampton. This article is based on a paper originally presented at
‘Weighing the Evidence: Comparative Approaches to Children, Young People and Crime’the Biennial UK and Ireland Youth
Crime Conference which took place at the University of Liverpool, 19–21 June 2002. I am most grateful to David Faulkner and
Mark Telford for their very helpful comments on this paper.
2
The data for Phase One are based on Home Office statistics and drawn from Rutherford, 1992.
To continue reading
Request your trial