Critical Issues In Youth Justice

Youth Culture and Social Policy.

Culture can be defined as the ways various groups develop distinct patterns of social life. Values, norms of behaviour, symbols and ideas become not just institutionalised but internalised to the individual member of a particular society.

Culture therefore determines the modes of behaviour and some criminologists known as sub-culture theorists, argue that subordinate or socially excluded groups create their own culture as an alternative to, or even in opposition to the dominant culture that is, like Marxists, they argue that subordinate groups express hostile attitudes to the dominant culture.

Sub-cultures are thus, in the main, more localised, and tend to respond to local conditions, such as road protesters, students, regional sub-cultures, and so on... though this can be wider and certainly this is the case with the concept of Youth Sub-Culture Groups. We can also, of course identify particular criminal sub-cultures like the Kray Twins in London's East End in the 1960's or the street gangs of Glasgow of the same period, or, for that matter, of Los Angeles today.

We can also discern that there has also been a class bias in this type of study, as Sheila Brown illustrates (Brown 1998) the danger of an adolescent group, unskilled and who are deviant from the norm has been persistently perceived as a social problem for at least a hundred years. The nineteenth century precursor to the modern day yob - the hooligan (and you should be aware that this particular word has racist overtones that are personally offensive) has been demonised by adult popular media for as long as such media has existed. That having been said sub-cultures do develop and may build norms of behaviour that are at least deviant and possibly criminal.

In particular, socially excluded groups of young people will join together to gain some kind of network of mutual support. Over time they may become, as was the case of the Glasgow gangs, part of a social tradition not just a distinct sub-culture but one that is historically rooted. The Govan Team, the Cumbie, the Billy Boys and the Maryhill Toi all persist as street gangs today but have origins that can be traced back to the original influx, and the reaction there to, of Irish immigrants in the late nineteenth century.

The concern relating to youth offending even appears to have an empirical validation- statistics show that in the 1950's & 60's vandalism, deteriorating property, unemployment and violent street crime, both in the UK and the USA increased. Statistics also showed that the perpetrators were mainly working class male adolescents.

Albert Cohen (1956) for example, in Chicago drew from data compiled by police and research by Wattenberg (1948) to argue that while all classes commit crimes, certain neighbourhoods create stress which leads to crime. This results from frustration and a lack of self esteem and therefore to gain kudos even respect within their own group - young working class males join criminally oriented street gangs. This has been and remains a real social problem for those of us who eschew a suburban lifestyle.

It could also be argued however that the neglect of inner city properties, so evident in this and other British cities, creates a culture of social apathy in which children have daily reinforcement of their abandonment by society. The attempts in the post war Housing boom to enforce the suburban idyll on the poor by creating housing estates devoid of any social amenities also reinforced this neglect. In Glasgow in particular the attempts to disperse trouble makers to peripheral housing estates was an unmitigated disaster, which actually contributed to the street gang crisis of the late 1960s.

The present Government has identified and set in place a social policy structure which has as it's primary aim the reduction in offending behaviour in young people. With a concentration on what has been identified as a problem rooted in social exclusion, a number of initiatives were incorporated in to the Crime and Disorder act of 1998. This legislation makes very clear that the current and abiding priority of these initiatives is a reduction in offending by children and young people.

The specific provisions of the act are being introduced in a rolling process as the resources and structures are put in place. This however has the effect, at least in the short term, of creating a system that appears to be in a state of flux if not disarray. Professional youth crime workers are consequently currently under a great deal of pressure, essentially relearning the entire system as it affects specific aspects their daily work. If the legislation, described by the Home Office as the most fundamental reform of the Youth Justice ever undertaken is not fully understood by educated adults working with young people, or for that matter by those responsible for facilitating their learning process, the individual young person caught up in the system is at a great disadvantage. It should be also noted that the specific provision of the Crime and Disorder act of 1998 have yet to tested against the benchmarks that have arisen because of the incorporation of the European Convention of Human rights into British Law, the first time in British history that something approaching a bill of rights for the individual, child, youth or adult, has ever existed.

The Home Secretary in a preface to the white paper itself makes clear how fundamental the change in the youth justice system contained in the act is, as well as outlining the purpose of the reform.

Today's young offenders can too easily become tomorrow's hardened criminals. As a society we do ourselves no favours by failing to break the link between juvenile crime and disorder and the serial burglar of the future. For too long we have assumed that young offenders will grow out of their offending if left to themselves. The research evidence shows this does not happen.

An excuse culture has developed within the youth justice system. It excuses itself for its inefficiency, and too often excuses the young offenders before it, implying that they cannot help their behaviour because of their social circumstances. Rarely are they confronted with their behaviour and helped to take more personal responsibility for their actions. The system allows them to go on wrecking their own lives as well as disrupting their families and communities.

This White Paper seeks to draw a line under the past and sets out a new approach to tackling youth crime. It begins the root and branch reform of the youth justice system that the Government promised the public before the Election (JACK STRAW November 1997 -Preface to the White Paper that was to become the Crime and Disorder act of 1998)

The prevention of offending behaviour by children and young people is identified as the principle aim, purpose and function of all the agencies with responsibilities under the legislation. As in many previous initiatives in the area of social policy for the family, children and young people the wider social context- that of urban decay and poverty and of a culture and media that promulgates the acquisition of instantly disposable consumer goods, is totally ignored. The act also contains no recognition of the class, race and gender barriers that stunt the aspirations of the majority of the British population. Unsurprisingly the Act also takes no account of how those barriers are reinforced by, and that are internal to the operation of Criminal Justice system itself.

© Brian Mulrine 2000

BACK TO INDEX TOP OF PAGE Lecture Four