Youth Justice, Participation and Radical Moral Communitarianism
| Author | Sean Creaney, Roger Hopkins Burke |
Introduction
There are promising developments in the field of youth justice namely as a result of reduced central prescription. There appears to be the possibility that professionals will have greater freedom to develop practices that are more inclusive and child friendly - not just in terms of local initiatives though, the development of AssetPlus with the quadrant that requires practitioners to elicit the views of children is an important positive step here. There have been considerable reductions in detected offending; fewer young people sent to custodial institutions; and a greater focus on diversionary practices. Bateman (2014) argues that with detected offending on the decrease and in conjunction with there being far less political concern over such matters the youth crime of today is not what it was. More specifically MOJ, Home Office and Youth Justice Board (2013) statistics show that 'offending' has considerably reduced: recorded offending is down from 73,712 in 2010 to 47,019 in 2012. The Crime Survey for England and Wales does indicate that there is a genuine fall in crime more generally. The fall in detected offending is indicative of a more child friendly practice. It is important to be mindful though that such developments need to be nurtured as such successes may be 'fractured in the face of a rapid change of mood' (Smith, 2014:62). In other words, although 'harsh responses for children who (break) the law (are) no longer de rigueur' (Bateman, 2012:45) the pendulum could swing away from child-friendly diversionary practices and there could be a return to punitive/ responsibilising governance. In this paper we argue that despite such progressive practices, work with young people who offend tends to be punitive, coercive and disengaging. The voices of children and young people who offend are often marginalised. The progressive shift has been largely confined to increases in diversion; for those children who are subject to formal youth justice sanctions the dominant approach continues to be punitive. In the context of a proposed radical moral communitarianism we critically discuss how such issues could be addressed. The important notion of participation is central to our proposals for an enhanced future youth justice informed by a radical moral communitarian perspective previously outlined in this journal by one of the authors of this article (Hopkins Burke, 2014; 2015a). We will first provide a brief resume of the notion of communitarianism, its impact on New Labour and the new youth justice system.
Communitarianism, New Labour and the radical moral alternative
The youth justice system established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was introduced by a New Labour Government strongly influenced by the political philosophy of communitarianism, which had emerged in the USA during the 1980s, proposing that the individual rights, vigorously promoted by traditional liberals, need to be balanced with social responsibilities to the communities in which people live. It is this critique of the one-sided emphasis on individual human rights, promoted by liberalism, which is the key defining characteristic of mainstream communitarianism (Etzioni, 1995a, 1995b). The intention is to restore an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and their obligations and responsibility to the community. This 'third way' emphasises the importance of civil society, which it is argued avoids the full-on atomistic egotistical individualism entailed by the Thatcherite maxim that 'there is no such thing as society' and, on the other hand, the traditional social-democratic recourse to a strong state as the tool by which to realise the aims of social justice (Giddens, 1998). The state, it is argued, has a role to play, but as a facilitator, rather than a guarantor, of a flourishing community life. Dissenters were nevertheless to observe that subsequent New Labour implementation took a different, significantly more authoritarian course; centred more on the use of a strong state apparatus to deliver outcomes (see Driver & Martell, 1997; Jordan, 1998). It was thus New Labour neo-communitarian credentials that were clearly apparent in the establishment of a contemporary youth justice system epitomised by the central state control of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) by the Youth Justice Board.
Hopkins Burke (2014, 2015a) directs us to the work of Emile Durkheim (1933) and his observations on the moral component of contract and the need for a more equal division of labour in society and argues that this provides us with the theoretical basis of a radical moral communitarianism; one which challenges the orthodox articulation and its hybrid neoliberal variation (see Houdt & Schinkel, 2013; Hopkins Burke, 2015a). This alternative, progressive, formulation actively promotes the rights and responsibilities of both individuals and communities, but in the context of an equal division of labour. It is a social policy agenda which provides the basis of a genuine moral communitarianism founded on notions of appropriate contributions to society (obligations and responsibilities), suitable fair rewards (rights), and consensual interdependency with others we all recognise, identify and respect as fellow citizens and social partners, not as people of no consequence to be ignored, avoided and identified as potential legitimate crime targets. Radical moral communitarianism thus promotes a fairer, more equal world, based on mutual respect between all citizens, but with commitment to and involvement in society being a central component of a new social contract (Hopkins Burke, 2014).
Hopkins Burke (2015a) provides a full discussion of some of the closely-linked rights which it is proposed should be available to all citizens of all ages, alongside their simultaneous responsibilities, in a society organised on radical moral communitarian principles. Briefly, the proposed rights identified are 1) the provision of an adequate income on which to live at the appropriate stage of life; 2) the provision of good quality affordable accommodation/housing of an acceptable size and proper rights of tenure; 3) to be treated with fairness and respect by all agencies, institutions and individuals regardless of age, disability, ethnicity, gender and religion; 4) the provision of good quality health care; 5) the provision of high quality education and training; 6) to be protected from crime and anti-social behaviour in our communities.
The policy implications of radical moral communitarianism for young people who offend
The table below provides a summary of the additional basic rights and responsibilities to be afforded to children and young people who are clients of the contemporary youth justice system based on radical moral communitarian principles and values (Hopkins Burke, 2015b).
Table 1: Rights and responsibilities of young people who offend in a moral communitarian society
The first proposed policy for children and young people who offend based on radical moral communitarian principles and values is that the upper-age limit for the jurisdiction of the youth justice system should be increased to 21: a proposal which is strongly supported by evidence gathered by a well-established movement of professionals and influential charities, in particular, the Barrow Cadbury Trust (2012) and T2A (Transitions to Adulthood). From a radical moral communitarian perspective, young people aged 21 and below should accept that they are part of this extended youth justice jurisdiction, accept its authority and behave accordingly as a part of being treated in an age appropriate fashion. This policy would be a central component of a radical moral communitarian response to youth offending.10*
Second, the nature of the particular youth justice intervention should thus be appropriate to the level of maturity of the child or young person and the level of risk they pose to themselves. Maturity is one of the most prominent themes in the literature about young adults with many, if not most, considered to be youths rather than adults (T2A, 2009). Prior et al. (2011) reviewed three key strands of empirical research (neurological, psychological and criminological) and supported this view concluding that the current transition point to adulthood (18) in the criminal justice system is...
To continue reading
Request your trial