Human rights and youth justice reform in England and Wales: A systemic analysis

Abstract

This article examines critically the persistently antagonistic relationship-across the past quartercentury-between the provisions of international human rights instruments and the nature and direction of youth justice reform in England and Wales. It introduces the core provisions of the human rights framework that pertain to youth justice and it sketches the nature and direction of policy reform over the 25-year period under scrutiny (1991-2016). To obtain a comprehensive sense of the relationship between human rights and youth justice reform in the jurisdiction, it applies a detailed systemic analysis; beginning at the point at which criminal responsibility is formally imputed and progressing through each stage of the youth justice system, up to the point where the child might ultimately be deprived of her/his liberty. By taking a 'long-view' of youth justice reform and by adopting a systemic end-to-end analysis of the human rights-youth justice interface, the article presents an analytical account of both change (policy reforms) and continuity (the enduring nature of human rights violations).

The ‘Great Decarceration’: Historical Trends and Future Possibilities

“…1978, p.14; Williams and Godfrey 2018). As can be seen in Figure , following the initial spate of ‘muggings’ in 1972, the number of detention centre orders rose significantly, especially for boys and young men from black and minority ethnic backgrounds who were, and still are, heavily over‐represented among the young incarcerated population (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell 2018; Lammy 2017). Yet, in the 1980s, the youth justice system continued to try to balance the punishing of deeds and the meeting of needs (Goldson 2015; Lotti 2016).…”

“…Understanding past and present dynamics of decarceration matters because there is a quiet revolution currently underway in the British youth justice system. The numbers of young people committed to some form of custody has declined from over 7,000 in the late 1970s, to 2,800 in 2000, to 1,250 in 2013, to under 1,000 in 2016 (Cunneen, Goldson and Rusell 2018; Godfrey et al . 2017, p.191; Goldson 2015; Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice 2016).…”

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: The Need for a Holistic Approach

“…Yet, legislative activity, notably the regressive steps taken during the enactment of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), especially Section 34 (which, as will be explored below, abolished the rebuttable presumption that a child is doli incapax) in England and Wales has come under increasing attack (Arthur, 2012). Particularly at a global level, concerns and misgivings around the low MACR in England and Wales have been articulated by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 2007(UNCRC, , 2008(UNCRC, , 2016, academics (Bateman, 2015;Cunneen et al, 2018;Goldson, 2009Goldson, , 2013McDiarmid, 2013) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society groups (for consideration of views concerning youth justice in England, see CRAE, 2015). Indeed, MACR is no sterile debate, instead being very much on 'the agenda' in the Westminster Parliament, as evidenced by Lord Dholakia who has repeatedly introduced bills in the House of Lords aimed at raising the age threshold, including during the current Parliament.…”

“…HMCIP, 2017). [AQ4] Longer term, system contact and continuing system immersion (potentially as a consequence of the consolidation of criminogenic behaviour, toxic mix and negative impacts on a child's character) also remain, particularly when those as young as 10 could possibly be embroiled in such a circumstance (Cunneen et al, 2018). How such can be made to align with human rights discourse is difficult to envisage (Farmer, 2011).…”

Shifting sands: The reconfiguration of neoliberal youth penality

“…Rights and social justice, then, are able to form the logical framework for practitioners to re-structure services and delivery arrangements -supporting a transformation of practice models (Gray, 2016;Smith, 2014b). At the same time, it is noted, adopting a 'human rights' frame for understanding and addressing oppression in youth justice will also provide a basis for challenging unequal and oppressive treatment, especially on the grounds of gender and ethnicity (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell, 2018). Models of progressive practice need to respond, too, to the trenchant criticisms and challenges offered by young people themselves (Phoenix and Kelly, 2013).…”