Delitos contra el Medio Ambiente por Comercio y Transporte de Sustancias Peligrosas

This first section of the literature review focuses upon young people's involvement in crime from an E/W perspective, as well as considering current responses to young people's offending as depicted by youth justice legislation, policy and practice guidance. I also consider the problematisation of youth crime and youth justice within academia, reflecting upon how these debates have informed and shaped current youth justice policy and practice.

Young people and offending - the prevalence and nature of youth crime

The majority of young people in E&W never come into contact with the criminal justice system (CJS). This does not necessarily mean that they have never broken the law, with the percentage of young people self-disclosing offending behaviour far outstripping numbers of young people officially convicted of crime and, or, involved with youth justice services (Nacro, 2009; Paton, Crouch and Camic, 2009). As such, when we explore the nature and characteristics of young people involved in crime as determined by their involvement in youth justice services, we must do so with the caveat that we are working within a particular context, a context where young people have been officially sanctioned and are being held to account for their actions.

In the year ending April 2017 there were 73,000 proven offences committed in E&W by children (YJB and MoJ, 2018:17). Violence against the person was the most common offence (accounting for 28% of proven offences), followed by other crime (at 12%, a third of which included taking a vehicle without consent), criminal damage (11%) and theft and handling stolen goods (11%). In terms of prevalence and typology of youth crime, tentative comparisons can be made against all incidents of recorded crime. According to the latest crime survey for E&W (ending December 2016), 6.1 million incidents of crime were recorded, including 1,117,969 incidents of violence against the person, 1,820,079 incidents of theft and 556,077 incidents of criminal damage and arson. (OFNS, 2017). Whilst not all reported crime becomes a proven offence, it can still be suggested that crime committed by children makes up a relatively small percentage of all crime committed. This is often in stark contrast to public perceptions of crime, with media 'portrayals of hooded teenagers terrifying

46

communities' (Halsey and White, 2008:vi). To this effect, young people who offend are often portrayed as 'folk devils' (Cohen, 2011/1972) and a disconnect occurs in society between narratives of children as innocent and in need of protection and portrayals of young people who offend as a risk to societal safety and wellbeing (D’Cruze, Pegg and Walklate, 2006). Negative public and media perceptions of young people and criminality may be compounded by the visibility of youth crime compared with other forms of crime generally committed by adults (e.g. credit card fraud), which typically takes place behind closed doors (Muncie, 2009). Young people from marginalised communities also tend to be more visible within local communities than their privileged peers, with crimes such as drug dealing or handling stolen goods occurring on the street as opposed to in the home (Macdonald and Marsh, 2005; Sibley, 1995). Societal prejudice and judgement of young people who offend tends to intensify in these instances, resulting in further isolation, stigma and othering, as young people are categorised as good or bad; in need of support and guidance or as feral, dangerous, a lost cause (D'Cruze, Pegg and Walklate, 2006).

Problematising youth crime; understanding why young people offend

But why do young people become involved in crime in the first place? In many regards this question is the cornerstone of criminological study. Theories regarding why people commit crime are wide ranging and highly contested; biological and psychologically orientated studies tend focus on individual factors or learnt behaviours that predispose particular people towards offending (e.g. O’Riordan and O’Connell, 2014; Hughes et al, 2012; Lombroso, 2006/1876; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1971; Bandura, Ross and Ross 1961), whereas sociologically orientated theories tend to focus more heavily upon structural factors, indicating that societal makeup constrains pro-social choices for particular groups and draws them towards offending (e.g. Durkheim, 2014/1895; Cohen, 2011/1972; Matza, 2009/1964; Murray, 1990; Merton, 1938). Other theories combine structural and individual factors as a way of understanding why young people offend (McAra and McVie, 2010; Farrington, 2003, 1997; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Glueck and Glueck, 1934). Presdee (2004) also highlights how engagement in offending generates a sense of excitement and fun for young people, as well as creating a sense of belonging for those in the 'liminal phase' of adolescence (Barry, 2006:24), where 'storm and stress' are viewed as

47

inherent aspects of teenage life (Hall, 1904), particularly as 'globalization increases individualisation' (Arnett, 1999).

Of particular interest for my study are theories that move away from the cause and effect positivism that has dominated criminological study, been endorsed by public funding bodies and impacted heavily upon E/W systems of youth justice (Case and Williams, 2017:529). In contrast, interpretative criminology considers young people's offending as it relates to time, space and socio-cultural context. Subjectivity is valued and qualitative methods of enquiry are foregrounded as ways of generating 'situated knowledges' (Haraway, 1998) and understandings of why young people engage in criminal activity (see for example Macdonald and Marsh's 2005 and Webster et al's 2004 longitudinal studies of young people living in 'the poorest neighbourhoods of the poorest town in E&W' (Webster et al, 2004:v) or Henderson et al's (2007) longitudinal study of young people's transitions across the UK). Theorising from this perspective views society, including youth offending and our responses to young people who offend, as socially constructed. From this perspective, theories of crime can only ever be theories, because what constitutes a crime and what constitutes an offender is continually defined and redefined in relation to place, space and time. As Case et al (2017:528) explain:

'The concept of crime, which is the foundation and centrepiece of the study of criminology, should be permanently consigned to inverted commas - indicating that it is dynamic, contested, ambiguous and contingent on the historical period, culture, country, or demographic characteristics of those people socially-constructing the concept of crime. The implication here is that searching for and pinning down the causes of this free-floating, shape shifting and highly subjective behaviour/s that sits within these inverted commas is like herding cats or nailing jelly to a wall.'

Intersectionality and youth crime

With Case et al's comments on crime firmly in mind, who exactly are young people who offend, or perhaps more poignantly, who are the young people who become known to YOTs? Between April 2016 and March 2017, 28,400 young people aged between 10 and 17 were convicted or cautioned, 16,500 of whom were first time entrants into the Criminal Justice System (CJS) (YJB and MoJ, 2018). Numbers of young people convicted or cautioned have fallen dramatically over the past ten

48

years, although large numbers of young people also have contact with YJSs that is not captured within these statistics, through early intervention programmes, restorative interventions or other pre-court or diversionary disposals (HMIP and HMICFRS, 2018; Smith, 2014a).

Males are disproportionately represented at all levels of youth justice, accounting for 84% of all young people arrested and 83% of all young people convicted or cautioned, yet only making up 51% of the current population of 10-17 year olds (YJB and MoJ, 2018:7). The over representation of males within offending populations is hotly disputed within criminology, even differences between the resting heart rates of males and females has been suggested as a reason why males may have a greater propensity towards crime (Choy et al, 2017). Another explanation for male overrepresentation centres upon social constructions of hegemonic masculinities and femininities (Haslanger, 2016), with gender roles interpreted, performed and reproduced according to social norms (Butler, 1990; Goffman, 1990; Bandura, 1971). With this frame of reference, it can be argued that our conceptualisation of young people's actions as offences and our responses to them are also gendered, with young women potentially more likely to be constructed and managed as 'vulnerable' and young men potentially more likely constructed and managed in relation to 'risk'. Such constructions generate polarised representations 'of young people as either 'vulnerable victims' or 'dangerous wrong-doers'' (Brown, 2014:1). Offending may therefore become a gendered performance of masculinity. In addition to this, gendered interpretations of young people's actions, gendered sentencing recommendations and gendered CJS and YOT management of young people who offend may also offer explanation for discrepancies in offending rates between young men and young women (Baumgartner, 2014).

As well as young men, black and minority ethnic (BAME) young people continue to be over represented within YJSs. According to Lammy in his 2017 independent review of BAME involvement with the CJS, only 18% of young people in E&W define as BAME yet 28% of police arrests of young people and 45% of young people in custody define as BAME. BAME overrepresentation has been highlighted as a serious, systemic issue across all aspects of the CJS, both in E&W and internationally. Within E&W however, Lammy regarded youth offending as his

49

'biggest concern' as recent declines in white young people's criminalisation and custodial sentencing is not reflected for BAME young people (Lammy, 2017:4).

In terms of the socio-economic backgrounds of young people 'It is the most disadvantaged and structurally vulnerable young people who tend to receive the most attention from youth justice officials at all points of the system' (White and Cunneen, 2006:18-19). From the disproportionate number of BAME young people stopped and searched (UK Government, 2018; Keeling, 2017), to the high numbers of young people eligible for free school meals who are targeted for 'intervention' (Crossley, 2018, 2016; Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012), marginalised young people's lives are more likely to be scrutinised (and found wanting) by the state, regardless of their involvement in crime. These 'net-widening' processes keep particular groups of young people under continual surveillance, leaving offending or ASB unlikely to go under the radar (Smith, 2011; Prichard, 2010). Inequality therefore cannot be removed from any debate on youth crime; marginality both intensifies attention from police and ASB teams and prolongs involvement within the CJS. It is crucial therefore that young people's experiences are explored through an intersectional lens (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), and that we remain mindful of the dominant powers of the patriarchy, of institutional racism, and of deep rooted societal prejudices against those living in poverty.

Responding to young people who offend; the role of the Youth Offending Team

So how do we respond to young people who offend? In England and Wales, multi- agency YOTs, (first established in 2000 via the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act) have a statutory responsibility to work with any child who comes into contact with the CJS. The primary aim of YOTs as stipulated in the Act is to 'prevent offending' (Section 37:1) and YOTs across England and Wales work in different ways to achieve this aim (Smith and Gray, 2018). Age of criminal responsibility varies across the world (Muncie, 2009), with a median age of 12 (Penal Reform International, 2013). In the UK, criminal responsibility begins at 8 years of age in Scotland, rising to 10 years of age in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, significantly lower ages of criminal responsibility than in many other European countries.6

6

Age of criminal responsibility varies from aged eight to eighteen across Europe, with many countries setting criminal responsibility at a higher age than the UK.

50

As already mentioned, recent trends (YJB, 2018) have seen a decline in young people entering the CJS and accessing statutory YOT services. The reoffending rates of this smaller cohort remain high however, suggesting that YOTs are dealing with smaller numbers of young people who are presenting with increasingly complex needs (Taylor, 2016).

Complex needs are often framed within youth justice in relation to a young person's risk to themselves and their risk to others. When considering the theoretical underpinnings of current youth justice assessment in E&W, it is clear that risk has been the dominant discourse, with crime framed in relation to a series of criminogenic risk factors (Farrington, 1997; Baker et al, 2005; YJB, 2005; Baker, 2012), and young people's behaviour 'risk managed' in accordance with these. Framing youth justice in relation to risk is problematic (Case and Haines, 2009; Case, 2007) because this approach adultifies young people (Smith, 2010; Muncie, 2009), construing them as offenders in need of punishment rather than as young people conveying need through action. As Smith (2010:19) explains, adultification can be clearly witnessed in policy and legislative responses to young people who offend, with the segregation of welfare and justice services, the removal of 'doliincapax' and the increase in adult based community sentencing options such as electronic tagging and curfew monitoring.

But surely any service working with young people must be focused on welfare too? Within youth justice in E&W, the justice verses welfare debate is well established (Muncie, 2009), with approaches to youth offending in England and Wales over recent decades aptly described as a pendulum swinging between one and the other (Smith, 2005). High profile cases where young people have committed crime, (particularly the murder of toddler James Bulger by two young boys in 1993), emblazoned public outcry and set a political precedence for zero tolerance approaches to youth crime, situating responses to young people who offend heavily within the domains of justice. In recent years however there has been an increasingly loud call from young people's advocates and from pockets of academia to buck punitive approaches to youth crime and to recognise and respond instead to the deep rooted welfare needs of many young people who offend (Liddle et al, 2016; Byrne and Brooks, 2015; Wright and Liddle, 2014; Case and Haines, 2015; Haines et al, 2013), including through a recognition of the power of participatory youth

51

justice practices (Manchester Centre for Youth Studies, 2018). Despite some progress towards more welfare focused responses, including the revision of youth justice assessment tools to create Asset Plus (YJB, 2012), recent investigations into young people's experiences of trauma (HMIP, 2017; Chard, 2016, Grimshaw, 2011), and YJB practice guidelines pertaining to trauma informed youth justice (YJB, 2017), focus still remains around risk management, with Case and Haines referring to the YJB's scoring mechanisms and scaled approach (2010) as the 'risk factor prevention paradigm' (Case and Haines, 2012). Assessing young people this way is highly criticised (Case et al, 2017; Case and Haines, 2012; Bateman, 2011; Smith, 2011, 2005), reducing opportunity for practitioners to work creatively and intuitively with young people to explore and address on-going issues in their lives. Working within the realm of risk also has the capacity to intensify supervisory contact with the YOT for marginalised young people, predominantly as a result of factors within their lives that are beyond their power to change. Increased contact also increases the probability of non-compliance; leading (potentially) to further criminalisation and escalation within the system (McAra and McVie, 2010). Conversely, the rigidity of the assessment process also poses problems for young people whose needs do not adequately translate into specified areas of assessment, including those who score insufficiently for multiple contacts yet require further support to access welfare intervention and address welfare needs, processes that are regularly (and increasingly) facilitated by YOTs (Byrne and Brooks, 2015; Smith, 2014b), particularly in the aftermath of recently imposed austerity measures (Atkinson, Roberts and Savage, 2012).

Despite continued reliance on risk based approaches to managing offending behaviour, the shape of youth justice is nevertheless changing across E&W. As powers have been devolved from government to local authority areas, YOTs are now responding to the needs of young people in very different ways (Smith, 2016). One such development has been the increased use of diversionary schemes to address young people's offending behaviours, which may account somewhat for the steep drop in first time entrants recorded by the YJB over the past ten years (YJB, 2017). The use and intensity of diversionary schemes varies from area to area, although broadly speaking, they tend to occur at the preliminary stages of a young person's criminal career, and still ultimately carry consequences for non-compliance

52

(generally an escalation to court proceedings). Some YOTs have broadened the scope of restorative justice practices within their response to youth crime (Restorative Justice Council, 2015), whereas others have focused more strongly on the rights of the child (e.g. the Swansea Bureau). Some YOTs are working on the basis of minimal contact, with others increasingly involved in the day to day lives of children and young people on their caseloads as other services have shrunk away. These are just some of the many approaches currently being adopted by YOTs, resulting in a postcode lottery approach to youth justice practice and sentencing protocol (Prison Reform Trust, 2010). For those young people who are subject to statutory court or community orders, YOTs are under increasing pressure to find creative and innovative ways to work with young people, and at times, fill the boots of pre-existent youth or community services (Taylor, 2015). In this sense, YOT responsibilities tend to span well beyond that of 'preventing offending', with many teams working in silo to provide an eclectic range of services for young people who offend; an approach that does not always fit too well with the scaled approach and its ascribed number of contacts. It might be argued therefore that although official numbers of young people known to YOTs are dropping, young people may actually be in more intense contact with their YOT than ever before, especially those who are marginalised and potentially those most poignantly affected by loss.

Young people's increased, unofficial, postcode lottery contact with their YOT is concerning, particularly in light of the paradoxical nature of youth justice where practitioners must simultaneously: address young people's welfare needs and their offending behaviour; advocate and regulate; provide opportunity and manage risk; build trust and issue sanction. The role of the YOT as both young people's champion and purveyor of justice is hard to navigate and at times difficult for practitioners and young people to conceptualise, particularly when it seems as though young people are both victim and offender, or where offending has potentially occurred as a result of unmet need (Porteous, Adler and Davidson, 2015).

Understanding youth crime and responding to it are not straightforward tasks. As such, this literature review only has capacity to scratch the surface of contemporary debate. How we define, code and respond to crime is continually changing, and those who commit crime (as it is defined within that present moment) are a transient

53

group, moving in and out of the YJS with varying degrees of contact over varying periods of time. Taking into account McAra and McVie's (2010) assertion that YOT intervention may actually intensify offending due to the stigmatising effect of being labelled as a 'young offender', whether we should respond to youth crime through formal mechanisms such as YOTs is itself questionable. As Becker (1963:9) warned in his seminal text Outsiders, 'deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label' and as Goffman (1963) theorised, identities are performed in relation to the labels we are attributed. Framing young people who offend as children whose behaviour conveys an unmet need and responding to them with compassion rather than as criminals may therefore be a more successful method of enacting public protection.