Comparative Analysis of Youth Justice in the UK and Texas

Desklib provides past papers and solved assignments for students. This report compares youth justice in the UK and Texas.

COMPARATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE: COMPARING YOUTH JUSTICE
WITHIN UK AND TEXAS
1

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Discussion........................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
Reference list...................................................................................................................................9
2

Introduction
In the current system, the emergence of the Youth justice system is primarily distinct from the
adult criminal justice system. This is the earliest example from the context of globalised
tendency. Here, the youth justice policy is a challenging enterprise due to its conceptual thematic
as well as the rationale. From these consequences, Youth Justice is spatially and temporally
differentiated, disparate, and diverse. It is evident that the youth justice policy primarily
comprise uneasy settlements of competing and it also focus on different thematic such as in
formalism, justices, welfare, restoration, responsibilities as well as retribution. The current essay
will create comparison between the youth justice within the Texas and UK.
Discussion
The criminalising, interventionist, retributive dimension of the new youth justice in England and
Wales have taken attention of widespread critics. The core dimension of youth justice policy in
England and Wales is governed by the support of the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for
Human Rights and United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. These governmental
bodies have expressed greater concern towards the relevant case, where the low age of criminal
responsibility is evident. As per the viewpoint of Casey (2011), Juvenile delinquency is a new
feature, where the emergence of thinking has been acknowledged in the form of the distinctive
concept of the young offender. It has been understood that The Parkhurst Act 1838, has been
enacted for diverting the young people. This policy is required for the young people, who
offended from being kept with the adult prisoners.
For the separate juvenile court, the Children Act 1908 has been legislated. From this discussion,
the Children Acts of 1933, 1963, and 1969 have monitored the trend in regards to the welfare
approaches. Juvenile Court has to take welfare of the child into the order of sentencing as per the
regulation of Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (S 44). From the political understanding,
Khan and Wilson (2010) argued that the welfare has to be promised a focus to meet the
rehabilitation and the need, which is compromised through the punishment and the moral
culpability. In order to differentiate this system, two key elements of the youth justice system
need to be understood. The legal system has been structured based on the two key elements such
as Welfare model of intervention and the justice model. The first one is related with the
3

intervention and assessment strategies, which can derive a larger extent from the ecological,
psychodynamic and the system based approaches. The main aim of the political as well as legal
reform is to include concentration on the family deficits, where the issues of socialisation are
evident. Therefore, the justice model has been structured as a pinnacle of welfare approach’s
achievements. However, as per the section A10 of Criminal Acts 1982, the concern to divert
young people away from the contact of other criminals is a greater concern in both UK and
Texas system (texascjc.org, 2018). However, than in the other European countries, young
offenders are more likely to sentence towards the custodial sentences. Therefore, the legal reform
towards youth justice and the structure have been understood but contemporary issue still not
understood from the angle of political context.
According to Hamric-Weis (1994), youth justice is a messy, contested, as well as complex
consequence, where it can be argued as contradictions, conflict, compromise, and ambiguity. It
has been raised primarily from public as well as political controversy. As per the viewpoint of
Muncie (2005), youth justice policy is highly dependent on the political imperatives. The acts
have placed the welfare of child and dealing with the youth crime. These types of responses are
criticised from the right of political spectrum. For instance, the example of the welfare can be
criticised from the justice-based notions. The argument of the Hazel (2008), depicts that the
approach of the risk driven regulation, control and modification through the embracement of
New Labour government (publishing.service.gov.uk, 2018). In addition, based on these
consequences, UK government has taken significant action. This status can be understood better
through identification of the different system in both UK and Texas.
As per the argument of Walker et al., (2015), in the rudimentary level, quite assumptions have
been visualised under the different trend of internal youth justice. In both juvenile system of
Texas and UK, the laws have been reformed due to special status of childhood. In comparison to
other countries, England and Wales need to be regarded as liberal progressiveness, which often
neglects the nuances of comparative youth justice system. Now the base on the age of criminal
responsibility needs to be observed from the dimension of the different legal system. As per the
opinion of Feeley (2017), young and the male are more likely to perform the criminal behaviour.
As per the UK situation, the age of criminal responsibilities is the 10 years old. It means at a
4

stage the child can be tossed in to legal consideration. On the other hand, it has been evaluated
that under the age of 14, child has no knowledge regarding write and wrong.
In case of the Texas, teen can be taken under the charge of criminal offence if he or she is under
17 years of the age. The policy makers have to deal with the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 17
to 18. Therefore, in both UK and Texas, the age of criminal responsibility is same. In other
countries, this scenario is different and the argument has been occurred, where consideration to
low age is inhumane and meaningless. The youth justice is structured but mainly it has been
applied to keep the Texas children safe as well as unhealthy. It has been visualised that if the
children are arrested, the legal form should follow age-appropriate setting (shu.ac.uk, 2012). In
this context, the comparison status of England’s Criminal court system with the Texas needs to
be enlightened. It has been visualised that England standard for the issuing formal change is a
reasonable suspicion, where the criminal offences have been occurred among youth. The
defendant in the UK has the right to jury trial but it is not liberal like that of the US. Most of the
criminal courts in US requires unanimous verdict, where jury is made up of twelve members and
any case will be continued until a verdict is rendered.
It is evident that the US is not alone to pass legislation, which affects the issue of juvenile
justice; UK has taken the significant attributes. Branson et al., (2017), have occurred the
argument that America is sill is the only country, which still sentence kid to die in the prison the
outlier countries of the Europe like UK, are more humane than the Texas. As per the report, the
most notorious Juvenile killer in UK has not spent any more 27 years in the prison. Other
countries are not sentence kid to die in Prison but they can offer interventions to maintain quality
life of those child prisoners.
Therefore, the lack of proper support towards the youth justice system has been visualised in US
and that can create major issues within the community. Over the last years, the demand for the
youth services has been changed. In the youth justice system, most children are black, white
working class boys and Muslim. As per the report, this many of them have the mental and other
health related concern. Training centre and the young offender institutions are not available in all
custody environments. In this system, many children come from the dysfunctional families,
where suing emotional abuse, alcohol misuse and other is evident. As per the UK report, 64% of
children can get Rehabilitation and 69% of them are sentenced to custody
(publishing.service.gov.uk, 2017). In the intervention approach and solution, the UK system has
5

better understanding regarding the criminological theory and labelling theory than the applicable
law in Texas.
According to Daly (2016), the criminological theory is required to recognise the cause of the
crime. After that, the intervention plan can be designed. It is evident that the link between the
practice and theory is not evident all the time. In both legal system of UK and Texas, theories are
significant to provide conception on the young offending. The criminal justice system and the
service providers have to take significant approach to work in a constructive manner. In this
dimension, empirical understanding can be visualised on all consequences. Pyrooz et al., (2018)
commented that labelling theory is required to look into the youth’s criminal activities, which are
associated with both of the individual and the society. Differential association theory can be
argued as the behavioural pattern and the antisocial attitude, which can be learned from the social
learning activities. The risk prevention framework, need to be apply here base on the theoretical
understanding. Now the discussion is required on the intervention approaches, which are adopted
by the UK government.
As per the UK government Prison Inspectorate’s support, crisis and concern related to self-harm
and suicide has been visualised among the youth prisoners, who are in the custody. Therefore,
the lack of safeguarding policies is evident and it can create issues to maintain welfare of the
young people. Brown and Steele (2015) argued that the government has to deal with the child
interest and it can be useful to protect the form of violence and other severe concern.
From a previous report of the Prison Reform Trust (2001), young people with the mental health
problems often sent to prison due to lack of existing support on mental health problems. In the
area of socio-economic deprivation, youth crime is significant concern but in Texas, there is no
significant intervention to reduce this rather like that of the UK. As per the report, 25% of person
arrested, who are under the age of 18. There are different types of offences, which are visualised
in both of the country. Based on the political argument, the legal system on youth justice have
been evolved but in Texas, the policies are inhumane than UK. The role and the aim of the
criminology theory and implementation plan are to reduce the rate of the crime as well as offence
rate. Feeley (2017) argued that male offenders under age 15 to 17 are likely to involve in the
guilt of violence. In addition, the criminal damage and Burglary are common among the boys
aged ten to eleven. In this case, the issues of such offended behaviour can be argued under the
cause of anti-social behaviour. Situational influence is the major factor, which drive those youth
6

to such activities. Therefore, it can be said that the UK government has tried to see on the
alternative options rather than the custodial sentencing (parliament.uk, 2018). The Criminal
Justice Act and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act has been passed in the 2003, which will rebalance
the overall criminal justice system. This has been structured based on the angle of different
theories. In UK, the restorative justice is related to the reconnection and reconciliation to the
community. Community sentence is also available for prohibit the young offenders from such
activities. Therefore, in UK legal system, the intervention approaches are related to reduction of
offence rate. They are prioritising the psychological and the social variable for restricting the
youth to become involved in the offence.
In case of Texas, the scenario is slightly different and not effective at all levels. They have
introduced the Day fines (ncjrs.gov, 2012). However, this strategy is not well effective to reduce
the offence rate in the Texas. They are primarily adapting this alternative in place of custodial
sentencing due to fewer system cost. If the discussion can be taken on the case of Canada, it can
be observed that the juvenile justice system is entirely developed to reduce the crime rate rather
than punish them. From this standpoint, Khan and Wilson (2010) argued that the aim of the
rehabilitation and the alternative option is to punish the crime rather than the criminals. In case
of Texas, there is still lack of this understanding but other countries have initiated different
action to reduce the young offence rate. In UK, the government has applied different action such
as health care services and other support for the young prisoners. Therefore, those people can get
a chance to enjoy a better life during their custody times (repository.cam.ac.uk, 2018). On the
other hand, the training programs are available to support the youth to deal with the community
if they are suffering from severe stressful situation. Therefore, In UK legal system, the youth
justice system is evolved and is effective towards sustainable community environment. This is
creating major difference from the applied law and the alternate options in Texas.
From the report of the Guardian, lack of support for the mentally ill young people in the custody
is putting the live at risk. It is also evident that the vulnerable offenders are at serious risk as
youth justice system fails to support their needs (theguardian.com, 2013). On the other hand, the
rate of child imprisonment is lower in Texas than the UK. In this case, the England and Wales
have high rate of child imprisonment cases. Therefore, often such situation may lead to
vulnerable situation for the young people due to lack of proper support. However, the
government has tried to see the alternative option based on the theoretical perspective. Based on
7

such policies, the reform and evolutionary trend is truly significant than the any other legal
system. Texas still has to improve their Youth justice system to maintain sustainability at all
level of community.
Conclusion
It can be deduced that the youth justice policy is a challenging enterprise due to its conceptual
thematic as well as the rationale. It has been discussed that Juvenile delinquency is a new feature,
where the emergence of thinking has been acknowledged in the from the distinctive concept of
the young offender. The reflected scenario has depicted that Juvenile Court has to take welfare of
the child into the order of sentencing as per the regulation of Children and Young Persons Act
1933 (S 44). It has been understood that the legal system has been structured based on the two
key elements such as Welfare model of intervention and the justice model. From the theoretical
paradigm, it has been understood that criminological theory is required to recognise the cause of
the crime. After that, the intervention plan can be designed. The understanding has been
discussed with the link between the practice and theory is not evident all the time. In both legal
system of UK and Texas, theories are significant to provide conception on the young offending.
As a major difference between two countries, it has been understood that there is still lack of
intervention in Texas but other countries have initiated different action to reduce the young
offence rate. In UK, the government has applied different action such as health care services and
other support for the young prisoners.
8

Reference list
Branson, C.E., Baetz, C.L., Horwitz, S.M. and Hoagwood, K.E., 2017. Trauma-informed
juvenile justice systems: A systematic review of definitions and core components. Psychological
Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(6), p.635.
Brown, K.E. and Steele, A.S., 2015. Racial discipline disproportionality in Montessori and
traditional public schools: A comparative study using the relative rate index. Journal of
Montessori Research, 1(1), pp.14-27.
Casey, S., 2011. Understanding young offenders: Developmental criminology. Open criminology
journal, 4(Suppl 1-M1), pp.13-22.
Daly, K., 2016. What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims &
Offenders, 11(1), pp.9-29.
Feeley, M., 2017. Two models of the criminal justice system: An organizational perspective.
In Crime, Law and Society (pp. 119-137). Routledge.
Hamric-Weis, S.K., 1994. The Trend of Juvenile Justice in the United States, England, and
Ireland. Dick. J. Int'l L., 13, p.567.
Hazel, N., 2008. Cross-national comparison of youth justice. London: Youth Justice Board for
England and Wales.
Khan, L. and Wilson, J., 2010. You just get on and do it: Healthcare provision in Youth
Offending Teams. London: Centre for Mental health.\
Muncie, J., 2005. The globalization of crime control—the case of youth and juvenile justice:
Neo-liberalism, policy convergence and international conventions. Theoretical
Criminology, 9(1), pp.35-64.
ncjrs.gov (2012). Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine. Available at:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230401.pdf [Accessed on 11/01/2019]
parliament.uk (2018). ALTERNATIVES TO CUSTODIAL SENTENCING. Available at:
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn308.pdf [Accessed on 11/01/2019]
9

publishing.service.gov.uk (2017). Youth Justice Statistics. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/676072/youth_justice_statistics_2016-17.pdf [Accessed on 11/01/2019]
publishing.service.gov.uk (2018). Engaging Young People who Offend. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/356204/Final_EYP_source.pdf [Accessed on 11/01/2019]
publishing.service.gov.uk (2018). Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales ;.
Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/577105/youth-justice-review-final-report-print.pdf [Accessed on
11/01/2019]
Pyrooz, D.C., LaFree, G., Decker, S.H. and James, P.A., 2018. Cut from the same cloth? A
comparative study of domestic extremists and gang members in the United States. Justice
Quarterly, 35(1), pp.1-32.
repository.cam.ac.uk (2018). PRACTITIONERS IN THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM: A
CASE STUDY OF THE YOUTH OFFENDING SERVICE. Available at:
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/256812/Marshall-2013-
PhD_36600.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed on 11/01/2019]
shu.ac.uk (2012). Youth Crime: Diversionary Approaches to Reduction. Available at:
https://extra.shu.ac.uk/ndc/downloads/reports/RR5.pdf [Accessed on 11/01/2019]
texascjc.org (2018). YOUTH JUSTICE. Available at: https://www.texascjc.org/youth-justice
[Accessed on 11/01/2019]
theguardian.com (2013). Youth justice system is 'failing vulnerable young offenders'. Available
at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/05/youth-justice-failing-young-offenders
[Accessed on 11/01/2019]
Walker, S.C., Muno, A. and Sullivan-Colglazier, C., 2015. Principles in practice: A multistate
study of gender-responsive reforms in the juvenile justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 61(5),
pp.742-766.
10