Insert Name: Essay Example
Young offenders Act
The contemporary youth justice has revolutionized through a series of reform on youth justice governing law. The traditional conservative strategies of youth governance are today modified to cope up with new concepts and developments. The new youth justice strategies have brought a different approach to administration of justice. It is possible for various translations to be made unlike the dominant control which applies uniformly to all youth justice affairs. The ongoing negotiations on coherence in the contemporary youth justice are bound to be fruitful for better approaches in administration of youth justice.
There is increased tendency to make children responsible, their families in an attempt to make legislative proposals that will enhance poverty eradication. The quest for youth justice has become more urgent than in previous years. The most significant change in contemporary youth justice is the use of individual responsibility prescriptions. Crime has adverse effects on economic since it interferes with the security of the entrepreneur society. Security being a major factor in running business, all the stakeholders has a role to play to curb crime in one way or the other. The fight on crime should be strategically based on established police agencies, courts and prisons but there should also be involvement of non-governmental agencies and the civil society (Brian, S, Joe, Y & Brian, W, 2008).
Control of crime is not a government responsibility alone, the private sector and school authorities need to come in assist in eradication of this vice. Every citizen should take up responsibility to guard against loss or an injury for his own good and the country as well. The management of youth justice develops coherent, efficient and effective policies to combat crime. The need for harmony stresses the importance of transformative rehabilitation. Rehabilitation shapes young crime stars to become responsible citizens and thus prevent future criminal activities by them. It is a concern that is nerve racking for youth to be a threat to the country whereas the future of the country relies on them for continuity. A combined effort of legal, social and political stakeholders is the only sure way to solve this problem (Declan, 2003).
Youth justice conferencing involves coming together of the youths facilitated by a convenor. The young people may bring along their parents if they wish to. Essentially the main aim of youth justice conference is to resolve the harm caused by an offence committed by a young person. The process requires both the offender and the parent or guardian to be willing to correct the criminal behaviors reported. After the young offender admits of committing a certain crime, the police refer the matter to a conference instead of the court alternative. In exclusive circumstances, the court may authorize a conference to take place.
The conference gives everyone an opportunity to raise their views on what happened and how it affected them. This way, a more acceptable solution to all the people concerned is made. In particular, the main objectives of conference are, to provide a safe, voluntary environment to discuss about the occurrence and resolve the necessary action for the young person to make things right. Secondly, get the young people to admit their offensive actions, find out means of solving the damage made to the victim of the criminal activity and lastly, join the offender and the victims ‘s family to agree on what course of action to take in compensation of the harm caused. The approach of youth justice by conference is friendly, seeks to bring understanding, and changes the young offender to become a responsible citizen thus prevent further offensive actions in future (Steven, M.C, Jennifer, M A, John, J.C & Robert, D.H, 2010).
Contrary to youth conferencing youth, conduct orders are based on behavioral restrictions to prevent the young persons from committing offensive actions. The restriction on movement is directed to perform other productive duties to control the risk of offending. There are no consultations whatsoever as it is in youth conferencing. The young offender is not given a friendly environment but rather apprehended in court and charged just like in case of an adult case. The parents are not involved either, but attend court session to know the verdict passed the court on the offender. A young person who is found guilty or pleads guilty is referred to the relevant authorities. A young person becomes legible for sentencing only if he or she is 14years of but not more than 18years. The geographical restrictions are stipulate to regulate the offenders from committing further crimes. This measure is meant to eradicate any of idleness that may render the offender vulnerable to peer influence or any other influences either social or personal factors that may lead him or her to offensive actions(Scott, C & Rebecca, C, 2006).
There are adverse intended and unintended consequences of youth orders today. The controversy over trials and sentencing of young offenders has risen higher. The opponents of juvenile justice argue out that the punishment of juvenile crimes has become more severe. Although the crime rate is also alarming, the juvenile offenders are far much punished than adult offenders. Mostly, juvenile offenders are denied their human rights. The kind of treatment that juvenile offenders receive is not fair especially for nonviolent offenders. The policy makers should tailor better solutions of reducing juvenile crime without compromising their basic human rights. Severe punishment cannot straighten a kid’s behavior since they might not recognize their wrong doing.
The act of subjecting juveniles to physical and sexual abuse in detention does not change their behavior but rather make them stubborn. The best example would juveniles subjected to adult jail; these juveniles become more violent much worse than those outside jail do. The officers in charge of juvenile punishment should have it that harsh treatmentment does not make it better at. It is unfortunate to rely on cruelty to solve crime among the youth. The legislations enacted to govern youth justice have undergone various reforms but still much need to be in essence of fair treatment that approves of human rights in punishment of whatever crime committed(John, M, 2004).
Adam, G & Peter, N.G (2002) the Cambridge handbook of Australian criminology New York Cambridge University press
Anna, S (2007) transforming youth justice London Willan Publishing
Barry, G & John, M youth, crime and justice London Sage publisher
Barry, G (2008) dictionary of youth justice London Willan publisher
Brian, S, Joe, Y & Brian, W (2008) youth justice London Sage publications Ltd
Bruce, G.M (2001) the problem of Justice Washington University of Nebraska Press
Declan, R (2003) accountability in restorative justice New York oxford university press
Eugene, M (2003) restorative justice London Sage publisher
John, M, Gordon, H & Eugene, M (2002) youth justice London Sage publisher
Jeffrey, A.B (2010) delays publishing New York Diane publishing
Junger-T, J (2006) international handbook of juvenile justice London Springer publisher
John, M (2004) youth and crime London Sage publisher
John, M & Barry, G (2006) comparative youth justice London Sage publisher
Malcolm, H, Andrew, L & Fredrick, H (2007) youth and child protection New York Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Raymond, A (2010) young offenders and the law London Taylor & Francis publisher
Scott, C & Rebecca, C (2006) anti-social behavior and disorder London sweet & Maxwell
Stella, T (2004) everyday law New York federation press
Steven, M.C, Jennifer, M A, John, J.C & Robert, D.H (2010) juvenile justice London New York sage publisher
Shirley, R, Priya, P & Birgit, R (2006) contemporary youth culture New York greenwood publishing group
Tom, R (2007) legitimacy and criminal justice London Russell Sage foundation
More Important Things