A fresh approach

As we reach the 27th violent death of a young person in London at the hands of their peers, it seems pertinent to reconsider how we deal with children who commit crime.

Craig Marshall became the 27th teenage victim to die in violent circumstances this year and we are on the cusp of exceeding the death toll for 2007.

Is the system working?

Demands for prescribed custodial sentences have increased and pressure mounts on the government to demonstrate that they are 'tough' on youth crime. Setting aside our emotional reaction to the seemingly endless media reports of violence, is our system of dealing with the criminal behaviour of young people working?

The government strategy, Cutting Crime: a new partnership 2008-11 was introduced in 2007 (see www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/crime-strategy-07). The government's focus is on 'early intervention, including forging ever closer links between schools and the police'.

Is the right way forward to forge greater links between the police and our schools or is there a case for avoiding the criminalisation of children and young people at an early age?

As well as criminalising young people, there has been a marked increase in custodial disposals in recent years. A revealing analysis of Labour's progress in youth justice over the past 10 years discloses that 'most of the Youth Justice Board's (YJB's) spending, 64 per cent, purchases custodial places for children. More than 10 times more is spent on custody than on prevention, which accounts for five per cent of YJB expenditure' (See Ten Years of Labour's Youth Justice Reforms: an Independent Audit, Enver Solomon and Richard Garside (May 2008).

On 30 April 2006, there were 2,819 young people in juvenile secure establishments. During 2004, a total of 8,110 young people were received into custody.

Age of responsibility

In 1997, the government lowered the age children were presumed to know the difference between right and wrong from 14 to 10.

At this age a child is presumed to know the difference between right and wrong. Should children of dysfunctional environments, in some cases cared for by inadequate adults, be held criminally responsible? It would seem nonsensical to suggest they have made an informed choice to commit crime.

These concerns were vocalised in a report for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in 2006 (From Punishment to Problem Solving '“ A New Approach to Children in Trouble, Rob Allen (September 2006)). Allen urged the government to raise the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from

10 to 14. The report called for greater emphasis on educational, social and mental health needs and suggested that civil childcare proceedings be used for children below that age who warranted it.

Allen recommended the encouragement of diversion from prosecution. This included the introduction of specialist prosecutors to actively divert cases and identify cases where local authorities should investigate the need for care proceedings. Youth courts should also consider the case for restorative conferencing and have the power to transfer appropriate cases to the family court.

The report also recommended a new sentencing framework, including a residential training order of up to two years; five years in the case of grave crimes. It called for the phasing out of prison custody for 15- and 16-year-olds and new facilities for 17-year-olds.

Allen's report confirms that 'these young people are not randomly drawn from society. Most have experienced a range of problems; low-educational attainment, disrupted family backgrounds, mental health problems and problems of alcohol and drug misuse'.

One way forward may be to provide diversion through the family courts for young people. It certainly provides the prospect of intervention at home without the long-term stigma and marginalisation that is consequent upon conviction.

The cost of conviction

Solomon and Garside's recent review of Labour government policy states that since 1990, a total of 30 children have died in custody; nearly all as a result of suicide. However, the exposure to violent behaviour, drug use and other criminal activity must also be considered as well as the aggravation of undiagnosed or untreated mental health problems.

The report says that reconviction is also a realistic prospect fuelled by a combination of unaddressed needs: 'Although the YJB has attempted to improve provision with initiatives such as the Resettlement and Aftercare Provision scheme, many young people continue to be left unsupported, unable to continue with education or training or with substance misuse or mental health programmes on completion of their sentence, and often without suitable accommodation.'

For those who escape custody, the stigma of a criminal conviction remains, and can often affect their educational prospects with long-term limitations on career and prospects.

Under s.19 of the Education Act 1996, local authorities have a duty to provide suitable education for children of compulsory school age who, because of exclusion from school, will not receive a suitable education without these arrangements. This is provided in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs).

Every Child Matters: Change for Children (www.everychildmatters.gov.uk) is the government's approach to children and young people from birth to age 19. Local authorities are encouraged to group pupils by age and the nature of their referral, where possible. It takes little imagination to consider the

long-term effect of grouping together convicted youths, rejected by the mainstream system, into such units. It also relies on the presumption that young people will remain engaged in education.

Enhanced disclosure '“ the disclosure of spent and unspent convictions, cautions and 'non-conviction data' held by local police '“ presents a frightening prospect for the future. Criminal behaviour at a young age will remain with an individual attempting to obtain access to positions of trust, the professions and vocations. This is in addition to the current exemptions from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

All would no doubt agree that we are at a critical juncture where current strategies are demonstrably ineffective. Allen's report is as relevant today as it was in 2006. A fresh approach is essential to protect and cherish our young people.