Since the general election, crime and justice has once again become a political priority. This has been driven by the new justice secretary Ken Clarke’s bold, largely pragmatic, and partly ideological stance on the need for penal reform. He seems to be taking a more progressive approach than his Labour predecessors, if not yet in practice, then at least in rhetoric.
The move away from ‘tough on crime’ and ‘prison works’ penal policy has provoked an outcry from some in the Conservative party, and criticism from former justice secretary Jack Straw and former home secretary David Blunkett. But the Labour leadership candidates are mainly yet to show their cards as to where they stand on law and order.
If Labour is to have any hope of recapturing credibility as the progressive party, it must shed its regressive record on crime and justice. They will need to come up with some bold and forward thinking ideas fast, and not try to ‘out-tough’ the coalition government – an approach that is tired and now unaffordable. Given the dearth of progressive ideas about criminal justice reform among Labour circles, here is one they can adopt- a radical new approach to people in the young adult age range who get into trouble.
The Barrow Cadbury Trust and a host of our colleagues in the criminal justice and youth sectors have been working for the past two years as the Transition to Adulthood (T2A) Alliance. We have built a strong evidence base suggesting that the criminal justice system must be radically reconfigured to address the over-representation of young adults within it and the way it responds to their needs.
Despite representing only one tenth of the UK population, 18-24 year olds are responsible for a third of all crime, make up a third of all those sentenced to prison each year and constitute a third of all probation caseload. They also have one of the highest rates of reoffending, and current responses to their crimes are failing to produce positive outcomes for society.
One major problem causing the current criminal justice system to fail young adults is the fact that our statutory institutions and legal frameworks deprive them of the necessary levels of support given to under-18s. Instead, those in their transition to adulthood are classified as full adults and lumped together with older offenders. The very distinct needs and developmental differences of young adults go almost entirely ignored as soon as an offender turns 18.
The T2A Alliance has made the case that young adulthood is a distinct stage in life and that young adults in trouble with the law typically have complex and multiple needs that are experienced while many are still in the process of development.
It is not a coincidence that this time of transition coincides with the peak age of offending nor that most young adults desist from crime by their mid-20s as they settle into relationships, establish their own homes, gain employment and mature: but many who end up in the criminal justice system as young adults never make this transition successfully and their criminal behaviour is unnecessarily extended.
Far too many young adults needlessly enter the criminal justice system in the first place when they could be better held to account by informal and constructive measures such as restorative justice. Once in the system, too many young adults continue to reoffend, and ultimately end up in prison on short sentences, although the bulk of these young people are not guilty of violent crimes.
The impact of a criminal conviction, and a prison sentence in particular, is something that will have lifelong ramifications and reduce opportunities to become fully integrated into society.
On the basis of our findings, the T2A Alliance has published the Young Adult Manifesto containing 10 recommendations that would improve outcomes for this age group, which, if implemented, would reduce crime and cut the costs of, and demand for, our overburdened criminal justice system.
The Manifesto focuses on the need to divert more young adults away from the formal criminal justice system, on using problem-solving sentencing to make sure young adults receive the most effective sentence to help them get away from a life of crime, on making custody education and employment focussed so that they don’t come back to prison after release, and on improving support for young adults in the community after their sentence is completed.
Many of these recommendations fit well with the coalition government’s initial thinking on criminal justice. This is particularly true of the T2A recommendation to increase the use of restorative justice conferencing, where offenders hear directly from those who have been a victim of their crime, and are shown the impact their actions have had on their community.
Looking beyond our shores, not to the punitive exceptionalism of the United States as was frequent under the Labour government, but to the prevailing policies in Western Europe, where imprisonment rates are almost exclusively lower than the UK’s, can reveal many successful ways of responding to offences committed by young adults. One of the most well evidenced approaches is in Germany, where maturity assessments of young adult offenders directly inform the sentencing process. This enables the court to sentence young adults under either the youth system or the adult system depending on their individual developmental stage. It does not mean a more lenient sentence – rather one that is more appropriate to the individual, where the right intervention can be delivered, and not one that is ineffective and a waste of money.
Implementation of the T2A Manifesto would make a big difference to improving outcomes for young adults and their communities. It would also save millions of pounds that are currently being squandered time and again on doing what doesn’t work. Most importantly, a fundamental shift is needed to recognise young adulthood as a real and distinct life stage. Only then can we ensure a systematic improvement in the life chances of young 18-24 year olds who risk becoming a lost generation, trapped in a costly life-long cycle of crime and punishment.
When Labour’s new leadership begin to carve out a new identity, they would be wise to distance themselves as much as possible from their predecessors’ record of ‘toughness’ and ‘popular punitivism’. To start this change by creating a new approach for young adults would not only be a sign of progressive and pragmatic penal policy, it would go a long way to tackling some of the more entrenched social problems that our society is still struggling to reverse.
Rob Allen is chair of T2A, http://www.t2a.org.uk
Rob,
Thank you for your considered article on ‘young adult offending’. You claim that Labour’s policy in this area was “regressive” and that we (the Labour Party) need to radically reform our approach if we are to “recapture credibility”, namely by ‘keeping them out of prison and using informal methods such as restorative justice’. In other words, Rob, you believe that 18-24 olds who commit serious crimes should not be imprisoned because they are 18-24! What planet are you from?
Do you subscribe to the notion of “let the punishment fit the crime” or do you prefer “let the punishment fit the crime unless you are 18-24”? It is glib journalese to use “regressive” for anything that you oppose. For a change, try to arrive at an opinion that is based on “fairness”. What punishment would be “fair” to the victim and community for the transgressions of the criminal, irrespective of their age? To me, there is something inherently unjust in, for example, discriminatiion in sentencing based on sex or age (apparently all too common these days). You, Rob, want to extend this discrimination to young adults – because they already commit a high proportion of crimes! Brilliant! That’s got to be worth an ‘F’ grade in GCSE ‘Criminology’.
I think, Rob, you would be better occupied if you studied the nature of weeds: why do they exists? what is a weed? can they be eliminated? why do they thrive in certain habitats and not others? etc.
I am all for examining our criminal justice system (something we should look at constantly) but PLEASE do it from the perspectives of the victim and society and not some trite psycho-babble centred around the criminal.
Recognition of the specific predicament and ensuing requirements on the 18-24 offenders should not be seen as a political issue or dividing line. Politicians of all sides preach the importance and values of ‘The Family’ but seem to ignore that 18-24 prisoners are often young parents whose own children may end up in care as a result of their imprisonment, thus probably losing out on chances of successful contribution to the social formation. Those promoting long term imprisonment for 18-24 also seem to forget that asocial practices are more likely to be turned round at this early age than with mature offenders. They also ignore the fact that peer pressure is al important for that age group and that incarceratiion reinforces the ‘gang mentality’ while riigorous one-to-one work in the community may reveal another side of the young adult. ML
Although a ‘progressive and pragmatic’ penal policy is needed I think I’ll scream if I hear or read any more ‘words of wisdom’ about and against ‘toughness’. People seriously need to wake up and understand that for a large part of the ‘crime affected voter’ it’s the failure to implement policy, in full, which has either made them vote for another party, with the hope that ‘little darlings’ will receive ‘tougher’ sanctioning or more likely become disillusioned with politics in full and stop voting altogether. It is wrong that custody slippers are seen as fashion accessories in some communities, ASBO’s an achievement and a skirmish with the emergency services as an entertainment for the weekend. As someone who has worked with ASBO’s and Restorative Justice I know more than most that they work, which is why I was staggered that Ms May didn’t get the ridicule she just justly deserves, when she proclaimed the ASBO system would be scrapped but I also know that in far to many cases the system fails the victim and the ‘slap on the wrists’ for the ‘naughty but misunderstood’ offender makes it a laughing stock. Labour took a huge step in the right direction when it introduced the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, subsequent amendments to it should have made life even easier but direct failures at local level which for some reason is preferential to ignoring then dealing with it is what has developed. Only when we say enough is enough and people, like the parents who argue why their child who has been taken home for under-aged drinking and demand for their confiscated alcohol to be returned because “they bought it for them” and ‘misguided but misunderstood little angels’ are dealt with with a toughness which makes them want to never get close to the criminal justice system never mind re-offend and find themselves back into it will we ever get back to a community of equals, without fear of thugs who do what they do in the large part for fun and because they believe they can.