Youth justice has risen, zombie-like, from the place unloved political issues go to die. In July, the Government published an interim report on The Youth Crime Action Plan, its “comprehensive, cross-government analysis of what the government is going to do to tackle youth crime.”
This prompted vigorous activity from the think-tanks and NGOs, and a predictable silence from the dead who may live again, aka the Conservative Party.
Last week, the Liberal Democrats published data showing that the number of 10 to 12 year olds convicted of a criminal offence rose by 87.2% between 1997 and 2007. Nick Clegg, remarking on the figures, argued that:
It is a disgrace the Government spends eleven times more locking up our young people than it does on backing projects to stop them getting involved in crime in the first place.”
Unless you happen to be keen on nineteenth century penal philosophy, Nick’s comment seems to make excellent sense. I would suggest, however, that it is, at best, carelessly imprecise. At worst, it indicates a refusal to challenge the prevailing conservative narrative on youth crime. Given recent reporting of events in Doncaster, a measured rebuttal is more critical than ever.
Existing Liberal Democrat policy on youth justice, expressed through the ‘A Life Away From Crime’ paper published last year by the party’s Justice and Home Affairs team, has a great deal to offer the electorate.
Most importantly, it commits to using custody for young people only as a “last resort”, noting that community sentences are “…cheaper, more rehabilitative and better at reducing reoffending.” Hear, hear.
What, though, would the practical consequences of the policy be? What exactly is meant by ‘last resort’?
In May 2008, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies published the influential ‘Ten years of Labour’s youth justice reforms: an independent audit’. The report states that, since 2000-01 (when the Youth Justice Board became responsible for commissioning custodial places for those within its remit), spending on youth justice has increased in real terms by a staggering 45 per cent.
The report notes the trend of disinvestment from social responses to youth crime toward criminal responses and questions “…whether resources should instead be directed to social support agencies outside the criminal justice arena.”
One practical consequence of a policy of “last resort”, then, would be a considerable saving. Another should be the explicit commitment to spend money through those agencies which are best-placed to improve outcomes. These agencies are social, not criminal.
As a party we seem reluctant to be explicit about this point; talk of ‘projects’ implies that youth crime can be addressed simply through a few youth clubs, or indeed a ‘volunteer force’.
Perhaps the reticence is tactical? How can we persuade the electorate that to protect communities youth justice budgets should be reduced? By recognising and publicising that ‘penal moderation’ expresses fundamental English values like restraint, tolerance and parsimony. The Howard League for Penal Reform, one of the key voices in the sector, advocated such a position in a recently concluded two-year study of the penal system.
These are also, of course, Liberal values. Youth justice offers us the opportunity to demonstrate the practical success penal moderation could have, and how these policies grow naturally from our core beliefs.
We must argue for radical and lasting change in youth justice. We must demonstrate that this desire for reform is rooted in our history and our values. And we must trust that voters are able to tell the difference between those who merely purport to be progressive and those who genuinely are.
* Tim Connolly is a Lib Dem party member.
3 Comments
‘and a predictable silence from the dead who may live again, aka the Conservative Party.’
That’s a bit rich from a party that’s been in permaneant opposition for 90 years!!!!
Sounds like a perfect lib dem issue.
I bet many would like vandalism cleaned, litter picked and dog mess cleared too.
Coupled with the correct social services and education of course.
The reluctance to be explicit about the fact that social and welfare interventions are best placed to cut crime and make communities safer is widespread. I work for a youth charity and campaign for the Howard League, and take any opportunity to talk to people about the campaign to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. People assume that the response to young people commiting crime is criminal or nothing, and nothing isn’t an option so we reluctantly have to lock them up. Investment in a welfare approach is never spoken about as the alternative.
The facts are that In England and Wales we jail more children than any other country in Western Europe. 76% of these children reoffend within one year of release. Prison is not safe for children or effective in cutting crime. The divide between children who are seen as needing protection having access to social interventions, and those who commit crime only recieving attention from criminal justoce agencies is artificial – children who commit crimes are mostly like to be the ones in need and it’s about time someone spoke up for them.
One more thing – I wouldn’t be too dismissive of the ‘volunteer force’ – whilst ideally social interventions would receive funding and long-term investment, they currently don’t, and many organisations and charities campaigning for penal reform, providing community responses and making the biggest differences in this area rely on volunteers – the work they are doing isn’t any less legitimate because they aren’t being funded by the Government to do so.