According to the ‘Crime and Disorder Act’ (1998) Anti-social behaviour orders are civil orders made against a person or persons who have engaged in Anti-social behaviour, which includes drunken or threatening behaviour, graffiti and vandalism or playing loud music at night. However, this classification is contested by prior (2009: 9) who claims, there is no ‘settled definition of what constitutes anti-social behaviour’. Yates (2009), claims that the orders are more concerned with the ‘prevention and ‘control of young people’s movements and behaviour ‘that were once regarded as ‘relatively minor acts of youthful transgression’ (Yates, 2009:4). That aside, an ASBO can be applied for by local authorities, police forces (including the British Transport Police) and by registered social landlords, but not by members of the public and can last for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years. Although a young person does not receive a criminal record with an ASBO, breach of the order could result in a custodial sentence of up to five years, without the right to evidence that might disprove the allegations provided by the plaintiff Jones (2001:8). A person in breach of the ASBO can then be brought before a Judge, and should the Judge decide the matter cannot be disposed of straightaway, can remand the respondent into custody, without the young person being able to disprove the allegations by the plaintiff, (subsection (3) (A) or (B) set in section 9 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014). The Crown Prosecution Service (2014) state anti-social behaviours orders ‘are not intended to punish the individual and they are designed to be ‘preventative’, not ‘punitive’, yet it may be argued the introduction of the Anti-Soc... ... middle of paper ... ...ed debt, family breakdown, loss of employment, and social stigma’, which has raised ‘important questions’ regarding increasing numbers of young people who have ‘multiple social needs’. It is argued ‘many young people continue to be left unsupported on completion of their sentence’ and as a result the risk of re-offending is largely increased which has led to a failure of reducing reconviction levels’ which Solomon and Garside (2005:52) argue, is ‘a reflection of the lack of service provision available to children and young people once they leave custody or the supervision of a YOT, as well as broader Socio-Structural Factors. ‘On re-offending’ the government has failed to make any progress. All the targets have been missed, representing a significant failure for a system that is designed to reduce the likelihood of further conviction’. Solomon and Garside (2007:52)
This is offered to provide an incentive for “good behaviour” and ultimately rehabilitation during a sentence. The granting and restriction of parole is outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and allows those with sentences of more than three years to be released after they have served their minimum sentences. The encouragement of rehabilitation upholds the rights of the community and offender, as the offender’s rights are not undermined by through excessively restricting their freedoms and the reintroduction of the rehabilitated offender into society minimises the threat of reoffending. However, the reward of parole for some offenders has resulted in community dissatisfaction. The Age article “Adrian Bayley should not have been on parole” represents a social concern regarding the leniency of parole for violent sexual offenders. The release of the evidently non-rehabilitated offender resulted in a breach of parole and the sexual assault and murder of Jill Meagher, a 29 year old Melbournian woman. As a result of the injustice of the lenient decision and subsequent community retaliation, new parole laws were introduced in Victoria during 2014. This legislation is outlined in the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act 2014, and the penalty for breaching parole includes up to three months jail and/or a $4200 fine. Thus, there is greater justice for the victim and especially the community through the discouragement of crime for offenders who may not be rehabilitated and are released on
For example, when we look at the anarchist squatters, informal ordering would not be affective in this situation and a police presence was subsequently required to enforce the eviction. In addition, social order is also challenged through the eyes of the media where people see the actions of others and learn from this (Blakeley, 2014, p87). People also begin to learn what is acceptable and what is not by discovering what happens when rules are broken. Furthermore, in the video ‘Ordering Lives’ we can see that police are formally enforcing the importance of laws surrounding fly tipping and anti-social behaviour for example, in an informal setting and encouraging the community to report such behaviours (The Open University,
Allerton, M, Butler, T, Champion, U & Kenny, D 2003, 2003 NSW Young People in Custody Health Survey: A Summary of Some Key Findings. Australian Institute of Criminology, [Online]. Available at: http://aic.gov.au/events/aic%20upcoming%20events/2003/~/media/conferences/2003-juvenile/kenny.ashx, [Accessed 14 April 2011].
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, often called by the name of YCJA, is specifically made for youths ages varying from 12 to 17 that disobey the law. In April 1, 2003, the YCJA replaced the previous justice act called Young Offenders Act due to several negative concerns. “These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims.” The main purpose of the YCJA aims to have a fairer and more equitable system. Although the YCJA is an effective law within the justice system, a main aspect/characteristic that needs to remain, is keeping the
... parliament has enhanced its Extrajudicial Measures, ensured effective reintegration of a young person once released from custody while creating more jobs and lowering crime re-offending rates and provided much needed clarification on sentencing options giving better guide lines to courts. Although The Youth Criminal Justice Act remains a very important acts with a lot of improvements there are still many problems contained within the act that are still to be improved. With this closing I must insist on posing the following question, Will there ever be a non problematic piece of legislation? One can only envision the answer, for now that is.
In February 2002, the House of Commons passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The Act came into effect in April 2003, replacing the Young Offenders Act (Mapleleaf). The new legislation attempts to balance the legalistic framework of the Young Offenders Act and the social needs approach underlying the Juvenile Delinquents Act. This goal is apparent in the Declaration of Principle stating th...
Everybody deserves a chance to prove themselves Youths under the age of 18 will be able to avoid arrest or criminal charges if they agree to participate in a “diversion” program that aims to prevent repeat offences. It might help them find a job, beat a drug habit, deal with mental health troubles or bring them face to face with victims to recognize the impact of their crimes. The goal is to reduce recidivism by providing alternatives to custody and overburdened courts, where some youths are more likely to learn about getting lawyers and saying nothing than about remorse and going straight, said Insp. David Saunders, who is overseeing the new program says “Youth got a second chance; they weren’t criminalized,” Saunders said. “The victims were very happy. A lot of people aren’t looking for their pound of flesh by sending people to court. What they really want is for young people to learn. They want them to be remorseful and to understand: Don’t do it again.
Is this type of legislation justified? In simple terms no. It removes basic human rights such as the Common Law belief of innocent until proven guilty, it also takes away the adversarial nature of our justice system and replaces it with the possibility of arbitrary imprisonment (NSW Law Commission, 2004). This type of legislation also fails to adequately balance the goals of Imprisonment instead focuses on the punitive goals and contradicts the goal of rehabilitation.
Although these implications have arisen from the investigation, this study had 41% of offenders victimising a child in their own family, which is a high proportion. Therefore, as none of those offenders were reconvicted, it shows an overall decrease of reconviction. Also, suggesting that there has been an increase in offences being carried out to outside family members, which also contributes to the overall reconvition rates declining, which could be looked upon as misleading.
Wilson and Kelling argued that if behaviour such as graffiti, rowdy behaviour, drunkenness and vandalism is un-tackled this can turn stable neighbourhoods into broken down neighbourhoods with fears of crime. They further argued that behaviour that is left unchecked likewise properties can lead to a breakdown of community control. This is because bad manners causes fear which leads to avoidance and some residence moving away, this promotes informal social control that paves the way for more extreme types of violent behaviour and crime. To stop the breakdown of community control, Wilson and Kelling proposed that any unfavourable act should be tackled immediate. If not, this leads the way for individuals to push the boundary and attempt more serious crimes. They believed that through policing of incivilities this was possible. (Maguire, Morgan and Reiner, 2012)
"Making laws to disarm only those who have a tendency to ... criminals of society. We call " Offenders Act ."
Taylor, Ian R. and Young, Jock. and Walton, Paul The new criminology : for a social theory of deviance / Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, Jock Young ; [with a foreword by Alvin W. Gouldner] Routledge and Kegan Paul, London : 1973
Punishment occurs to individuals who break the law. It is also used to maintain the level of crime and to protect community members in Australia. To determine that society is content with maintaining the crime rate, this essay will discuss punishment types given to offenders and how society justifies the use punishment. Additionally, providing a brief overview of the community correction and prions rates to show that communities prefer to incarcerate lawbreakers. Highlighting that crime rates are being maintained by looking at the personal crime rate for assault before concluding that Australian society feel safe enough to allow the criminal justice system to sustain the crime rate.
Situational theory believes that offenders are often opportunistic therefore; it aims to limit the opportunities that offenders have to participate in criminal behaviour (Morgan, Boxall, Linderman, Anderson 2012). This particular crime prevention strategy incorporates a range of measures that emphasise targeting very specific forms of crime in certain circumstanc...
Stokes, D. 2004. Submission to the Youth Justice Agency. [Online] Available from: www.youthreach.ie [Accessed 7th May 2012]