Young people committing non-severe crimes should be dealt with by new Community Justice Panels in which victims and community representatives are able to confront non-severe young offenders, rather than putting them through the police and court system. That is according to new research from the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) to be published ahead of next monthโs Youth Crime Action Plan.
ippr argues that criminalisation targets should be replaced with a โtiered systemโ for youth justice. Criminal courts would focus attention on severe crimes, meanwhile non-severe offences and anti social behaviour would be tackled using a range of โCommunity Justiceโ approaches. These should include Community Justice Panels where members of the local community meet offenders to agree โpaybackโ contracts that also tackle re-offending, and Restorative Conferences where the offender meets the victim in a mediated forum.
A tiered approach would help to prevent re-offending by allowing a co-ordinated approach between the victim, the local community, and the offenderโs family, school and peer group. Community Justice Panels would focus in particular on the offender โpaying backโ the victim and the community. In addition to face-to-face mediation and directly provided compensation like cleaning up graffiti or returning stolen property, offenders could also contribute a number of hours of constructive voluntary work in the community.
ippr argues that Louise Caseyโs recent report (see separate report, Casey review) is right to argue for engaging communities in the fight against crime, the need for improved youth facilities and better information for citizens to counter misperceptions that the system is ‘soft’. But it suggests that if the Government wants to reduce youth crime a different approach is needed.
ippr’s new research shows that Government targets have led to thousands more youths being criminalised for less-serious offending and anti-social behaviour, yet done little to reduce re-offending rates. Rather than being โtough on crimeโ targets have often moved police resources away from preventing and investigating severe crime. They have also increased the chances of young people becoming frequent criminals. Once drawn into the criminal justice system, young people are more likely to re-offend.
ipprโs research, including new figures drawn from Freedom of Information requests, shows that targets to bring offences to justice led to a disproportionate focus on minor offending by young people, despite no increase in offending in that period. Since the target was introduced in 2002:
*
The number of under-18s being brought into the criminal justice system has risen by over a quarter, two-and-a-half times faster than adults.
*
The number of under 15s being criminalised has increased by a third.
*
The average seriousness of offences being brought into the youth justice system has been falling.
The trend of increasing criminalisation of youths for more minor offences has also prevented the Government from achieving its targets to reduce the youth prison population. Whilst the Government committed to cutting youth custody by 10 percent by 2007/08, it actually rose by six per cent.
James Crabtree, Associate Director, Public Services, ippr said: โCurrent targets to bring more offenders โto justiceโ have resulted in the police concentrating on easier to solve low level crimes committed by children and teenagers often with complex problems. This has not resulted in crime reduction but serves to criminalise young people, increases re-offending and misdirects important resources away from dealing with severe offences and crime prevention.
"Instead of drawing young people into the criminal justice system for non-severe offences, they are more likely to give up crime if they face up to communities and victims to pay back for their crimes and tackle the causes of offending. We should not be soft or tolerant, but the current trend of criminalisation is not working. A truly โtough on crimeโ approach would give victims and community members the opportunity to challenge kids on the consequences of their actions and prevent re-offending.โ
ipprโs research draws on lessons from countries like Canada and New Zealand and experiences within the UK in Scotland and Northern Ireland which suggest such an approach can lower crime and reduce re-offending. In a Canadian study, offenders who were dealt with using restorative justice had a much lower reconviction rate – just 11 percent compared with 37 percent of those who went to prison.
In Scotland, which has a lower age of criminal responsibility (8), only severe offenders (under 16) are dealt with by the criminal justice system. Most young offenders are diverted to a Childrenโs Hearing with local community panel members who focus on tackling the problems causing crime.
In Northern Ireland, many youth offenders are diverted away from the courts to Restorative Youth Conferences. 91% of young people and 81% of victims prefer this to the criminal court process. 92% of young people and 78% of victims felt the conference had helped the young person realise the harm of their offence.
This move towards criminalising youths has varied across England and Wales, with a near-doubling of youths brought into the criminal justice system in Cheshire and Sussex compared with significant reductions in Northamptonshire, and the City of London and South Wales. Trends do not reflect changes in recorded crime rates over the same period.
The ippr has tested the ideas with members of the public in deliberative workshops. It found that when presented with case studies of young people who have got into trouble, people are more willing to consider community justice options rather than the traditional criminal justice approach. Youth Justice: a new direction by Joe Farrington- Douglas will be published in July.
