Youth Justice Board's Budget Reduced by 45% since 2010/11

The Youth Justice Board has released their Corporate Plan and Business Plan which can be found HERE. The Youth Justice Board is a public body whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. The main responsibilities are to oversee the youth justice system in England and Wales, work with others to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people under the age of 18, and to ensure that custody for young people is safe, secure, and addresses the causes of their offending behavior. Visit their website HERE

The YJB has announced in their 2014-2017 Corporate and Business plan that they will be focusing on reducing reoffending of young people by improving resettlement strategies for young people who are released from custody, increasing educational opportunities while in custody, ensuring young people are placed at the secure estates that best suit them, and by creating the secure college pathfinder to be built in spring 2017. More information about the secure college can be found HERE.

In addition to working closely with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Secretary of State for Justice, the YJB also works with the Home Office. Their mission with the Home Office is to 'prevent anti-social behavior and youth crime, including youth violence and support the delivery of the cross-departmental Ending Gang and Serious Youth Violence strategy and related work to prevent the sexual exploitation of girls'. This is undertaken even though the Home Office has withdrawn all financial support to the YJB this year.

In addition to working with the Home Office, the YJB also works with:

• Young Offenders - to get their opinion on youth justice and youth offending.
• The Department of Health - to ensure there are mental health and substance misuse services available to young people in the youth justice system.
• Department of Education - to ensure education services meet the needs of children and young people.
• Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) - to support YOT objectives and also make sure YOTs are evaluated and performing to high standards.
• Secure Accommodation Providers - such as the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), local authorities and private sectors.
• Voluntary Sectors - with around 6,000 volunteers to support initiatives such as restorative justice, act as appropriate adults for young people in custody, mentors, in prevention or education schemes and with families. If you are interested in volunteering, click HERE
• Adacemic Community - to ensure that advice and guidance is based upon the latest UK and international research.

The main objectives in their Business plan for 2014/15 are as follows:

1. Improvement in the delivery of the youth justice system in the community.
2. To create an under-18 secure estate that better meets the needs of young people.
3. To make structural and process improvements that support a better youth justice system.
4. Make sure young people are placed efficiently in the most appropriate establishment.
5. The safety and well-being of children and young people in the youth justice system is assured.
6. Practitioners have access to the best advice and support, and use this in practice.
7. The YJB is seen as an effective and efficient public body.

Needless to say, the YJB has a lot on their plate over the next year. However, their report has indicated that by the end of 2014/15, they will have 'delivered cumulative savings of £525m, with a budget now £210m (45%) less than the 2010/11 baseline'.

This is the breakdown of expenses and savings made:

 

The YJB is now solely funded by the MoJ following 'the transfer of the Home Office prevention funding from the YJB to police and crime commissioners'. <--- This is another topic for another day...   

One finding based on recent Youth Justice statistics is that there has been a decrease in the number of First Time Entrants (FTEs) into youth custody. This was seen as a result of the positive work of the YJB, which I am sure some of it was. However, in their business plan, the YJB openly admits that in order to deal with the financial challenges stated above, they have incorporated a strategy which is to: 'Maximise savings from having fewer young people in custody by decommissioning beds in the under-18 secure estate'. Well...if you have less money and there are less spaces available in custody for young offenders, then obviously there will be a reduction in the number of FTEs. Is this reduction really an outcome of best practice, or is it simply the outcome of a reduced budget?

This isn't to take away from the hard work that the YJB does to help prevent offending and re-offending. Instead, it is a means to provide a clearer picture of what is really going on and to help us understand that while we are being told that more is being done to help young people in England and Wales, the government is actually spending LESS money on young people at risk of offending and re-offending. It is also important to consider whether or not the government is perhaps embellishing the results of their youth offending statistics by taking credit for the reduction in FTEs, when in reality it is very likely the result of budget cuts and fewer available spaces in youth custody.

A. Neaverson

Rolf Harris and the Celebrity Justice System

The CJS: Criminal Celebrity Justice System.

 It has probably not escaped most people’s attention that there is a debate raging on about whether or not the sentence handed down to Rolf Harris is appropriate. Some are of the opinion that the sentence is not long enough, or too lenient in proportion to the offences he was convicted of. Some believe that as a man of 84, there is little benefit to putting him in jail, and some going so far as to believe that a man of this age is incapable of being a further danger to women (whether or not the offending stopped in later life this view genuinely frightens me). In my own opinion, I have several problems with the sentences passed down on Rolf Harris last week.

 Firstly, in the sentencing comments by Mr Justice Sweeney he spoke of considering that Mr Harris be enabled to spend his 'twilight years' with his family. My major contention with this issue is the length of time that his abusing went undetected, unreported, and I suppose more to the point unpunished. Whilst it may seem pointless to some; sending a man who probably won't live to fulfil his full sentence to prison, I would ask those people to consider the effect that the abuse has had on the victim(s), the knowledge and anguish they have held for lengthy periods of time knowing that their abuser has been afforded the freedom to live peacefully in a way that was taken from them. I would also suggest that this be reason to not consider his age a mitigating factor, he has, for decades been able to spend time with his family, I seriously wonder why this luxury should be granted to him now just because he has been discovered so late in his life.

 My second issue is with whether his celebrity status was a factor in a lower sentence length, as his other 'contributions to society through entertainment and charity work' also seem to have been considered. Teachers and care home workers are all in the position to make great contributions, but when these positions are manipulated to enable sexual offending, it is considered to be a gross breach of trust, and therefore, I have to wonder the extent to which their contributions are considered mitigating factors. If a teacher whom abused several children was also supporting many others towards achieving good grades etc, would this be considered a worthy enough contribution to society to warrant a lowered sentence in the same way that the charity work of a popular entertainer may be? Somehow the scales feel tipped, though on research, sentence lengths for so called non-celebrity historic abuse cases still seem lenient in my eyes anyway; the reason behind this brings me on to my third point:

 Concurrent sentences. Under guidelines for concurrent sentencing, when several charges are pursued, if a person were to be sentenced consecutively this may result in an overall sentence length considered disproportionate to the crimes committed, and therefore concurrent sentencing is used to consider the offences as a whole. While I see some sense to this, in this case along with those of Stuart Hall and Max Clifford I feel it has been grossly miscalculated to the benefit of the convicted party.  According to the sentencing council guidelines, when multiple sentences are to be served concurrently, it may be that some are increased in length through the consideration of aggravating factors to reflect the overall criminality and the amount of harm caused to the victims.  With this in mind, receiving 12-15 month sentences for offences which even under the 1956 act carry a maximum sentence of 2 years, does not reflect the purpose set out in these guidelines. 

I understand the sensibility behind concurrent sentencing, however, with this case it seems that whilst the mitigating circumstances have been taken into account, there is a distinct lack of consideration for the aggravating factors that should have been applied to the sentences of the six sexual offences to be served concurrently.  As I’ve previously said, each of these carry at lowest, a maximum sentence of 2 years (and for the most recent charges, up to 10 years). It is astounding that it appears the psychological effect on his victims has been disregarded with the knowledge Rolf Harris is likely to serve just half of his sentence in prison.

 

J. Ison

B.A. (Hons) Crime & Investigative Studies

Sexual Offender who has been sentenced for 12 counts of abuse and victimized at least 4 young girls will spend less than 3 years in Prison: Rolf Harris

By A. Neaverson

If you were to read the headline without the celebrity name attached, you would be absolutely appalled by the seemingly lenient sentence. However, in today’s society we have become more accepting of responses such as ‘Yeah, that’s what I expected because he is so famous’. Since when did we fall back into the pre-classical approaches to criminal justice and have one set of laws for the rich and another for the poor? 

 

Rolf Harris has been sentenced to 5 years and 9 months in prison, meaning he is likely to spend less than 3 years physically behind bars. Furthermore, he will not be ordered to pay compensation to his victims. According to the BBC, Rolf showed no emotion while his sentence was being read out; maybe he didn’t know if he should cry or smile.

As described within the Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Sweeney found here, Rolf Harris was sentenced for 12 counts of indecent assault on 4 victims who were aged between 8 and 19 at the time. He received the following sentences for each count:

Count 1: 9 months’ imprisonment.

Count 2: 6 months’ imprisonment consecutive.

Count 3: 15 months’ imprisonment consecutive

Count 4: 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent

Count 5: 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent

Count 6: 12 months imprisonment concurrent

Count 7: 15 months’ imprisonment consecutive

Count 8: 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent

Count 9: 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive

Count 10: 9 months’ imprisonment concurrent

Count 11: 9 months imprisonment concurrent.

Count 12: 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive.

 
 Some people are asking “But what did he do?”, “Didn’t he just grope a few girls? Back in the day that wasn’t uncommon”. Well let me help you to get a better picture of what Rolf Harris did to innocent children.

You indecently assaulted ‘A’ in 1969 (when she was aged 8 and you were aged 39). You did so when you made an appearance at the Leigh Park Community Centre in Havant, and she approached you for your autograph. Others were present. Taking advantage of your celebrity status, you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing.

Victim 'C' - Age 13, took her on holiday and indecently assaulted her; and again when she was 15. You left your wife and ‘C’’s parents downstairs and you went up to ‘C’’s bedroom on the top floor of the house....."

 
Ill stop there, but if you want to know "what did he do" the judge summarises it here.

So why did he only get less than 6 years... or 6 months per offence? Because of his Mitigating Factors (which are factors that work in favour of the defendant and can result in a lesser sentence). According to the sentencing remarks, the judge considered the following mitigating factors as part of his sentencing decision:

“On your behalf I am asked to take into account a number of matters in mitigation, including the following:

(1) With the exception of ‘C’ the offences were brief and opportunistic. 

(2) The fact that you have no previous convictions and have led an upright life since 1994 ‐albeit it is accepted that that must be tempered by the reality, underlined in the Attorney General’s Reference (above), that you got away with your offending for years. 

(3) The fact that you have a good side, that there are many people who know you who speak well of you, and that over many years you have dedicated yourself to a number of charitable causes.

(4) The fact that you are not in the best of health, as attested to in the report of Dr Fertleman, and that therefore, although capable of serving a prison sentence, it will be particularly tough on you. 

(5) The fact that your wife, who you help in looking after, has various health problems, as attested to in the report of Dr Mitchell‐Fox. 

(6) That you should be enabled to spend your twilight years with your family.”

I’m sorry, but that’s just not good enough for me. The mitigating factor that I think we especially need to reconsider is the last one, “That you should be enabled to spend your twilight years with your family”. What about the young women’s right to spend their childhood without having it ruined by a sexual predator. Forget about their childhood; the events that took place have ruined their adolescents and impacted their adult years as well, not to mention the outcome that this trial will now have on them. They have been suffering for over 30 years, yet the judge says that Rolf Harris should be enabled to spend his last few years within the safe comfort of his family. It appears that the Mitigating factors are being put before the negative outcomes that his victims have been dealing with for their entire lives.  

Rolf Harris was sentenced based on ‘sentencing historic sexual offences set out in Annex B of the current Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline” which means that the “maximum sentence on Count 1 is one of 5 years imprisonment, on each counts 2-9 it is one of 2 years imprisonment, and on each of counts 10-12 it is one of 10 years”. Today, these offences attract significantly higher maximum sentences, but regardless, as stated “on each of Counts 10-12 it is one of 10 years” for a maximum sentence meaning he could have received more time in prison.

Perhaps this is why, according to the BBC “the sentence of five years and nine months has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the ‘unduly lenient sentence scheme’". To read more about the unduly lenient sentence, click here

It would be interesting to look at a comparison of this ‘celebrity status’ with a normal ‘citizen status’ case to see if the types of sentences are similar, or if they have been impacted by his celebrity status.

A.Neaverson

criminologyonthestreets@gmail.com

 

 

 

Enough with the politicized knee-jerk response to selective interpretation of Youth Offending Statistics.

 According to David Barrett, who is a Home Office Correspondent for The Telegraph Newspaper, the “proportion of young offenders committing new crimes reached a 10-year high” (October 31, 2013). 

Mr. Barrett is correct when he reports that recently published data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has identified a 2% increase in re-offending rates since 2000 leading to the highest percentage of offenders re-offending. The response from the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, is that the 2% increase is evidence that his “payment by results” reform proposals should be taken into serious consideration. This reform will create contracts with private companies and charities who will work with less serious offenders. These companies will only be paid in full if they achieve the targets set to reduce re-offending. 

What Mr. Barrett and Mr. Grayling are neglecting to mention, is the fact that the overall youth offending and custody rates are currently at an all-time low. With such a small youth offending cohort, it is not surprising that the percentage of re-offending rates has increased slightly. It could be argued that those who are still in the system are young offenders who are considered the most serious and challenging; thus, we would predict they would be the most likely to re-offend. Simply put, if your cohort has reduced and primarily includes only serious and violent offenders,  your statistics of re-offending will naturally increase. The fact that they have only increased by 2% is actually a positive given the offending nature of those currently involved in the youth justice services.

Taking a closer look at the statistics provided by the MoJ, it was reported that overall there were 137,335 proven offences by young people in 2011/12, which is a decrease of 22% from 2010/11 and a decrease of 47% since 2001/02. This overall reduction includes a reduction in criminal damage (-28%), public order (-27%), theft and handling (-23%), and violence against the person (-22%). Furthermore, while the rates of re-offending has increased 2% since 2000, the rates of 'First Time Entrants' (FTEs - first reprimand, warning, caution or court conviction) has fallen 20% since 2010/11 and an impressive 59% since 2001/02. 

(click to enlarge image)

With regards to the total number of young people receiving sentences, there were 66,430 in 2011/12 which is another reduction of 22% since 2010/11 and 48% since 2008/09. This decrease is the result in the fall of FTEs.

As proposed above, while the overall number of young people involved in the justice system has fallen, those who are involved could be identified as more serious and challenging offenders. In 2011/12, the majority of proven offences were committed by young people aged 15+, with only 25% committed by those aged 10-14. However, this year is the first time in 10 years that the average custody population has fallen below 2,000 (1,963) with a dramatic 30% reduction since 2001/02 (2,801). Although violence against the person has decreased by 22% (as stated above), it is one of the most common offence types amongst young offenders in custody, supporting the argument that the current cohort of young offenders are the offenders who would be considered the most challenging.  

(click to enlarge image)

The breakdown of primary offence types indicates a high proportion of serious and violent offences. This year, 27% of young people were in custody for robbery offences, and 21% for violence against the person. Again, supporting the argument that the current population now consists of young offenders who are most serious and challenging which would increase the statistics of re-offending; not because of the failure of the justice system. In fact, based on the significant decreases in overall offending and custody rates, it could be argued that the current system is doing exactly what it is meant to do.

Overall, the politicized statement given in the above article is questionable given the fact that “in 2000, there were 139,326 young people that formed the re-offending cohort, in 2010/11 the size of the re-offending cohort had fallen 37% to 88,357...this suggest that young offending teams are working with a smaller but generally more prolific cohort” (MoJ, 2013). Making these generalized statements that “re-offending is the highest it’s been in a decade” and that we need to seriously consider “payment by result” rehabilitation methods is a very narrow minded response to the published statistics and needs further investigation. This type of politicized response is not taking into consideration the demographics and risk-factors of those who are not included in the small but serious offending cohorts. Enough with the politicized knee-jerk response to selective interpretation of Youth Offending Statistics. 

A. Neaverson 

Increasing Offences to Face Life Sentences, A. Smith

Increasing Offences to Face Life Sentences

 A. Smith

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15464874

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has proposed changes to those offences faced with mandatory life sentences. As discussed on BBC News, this includes those who have been convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime in England and Wales.

Violent or sexual offences were not the only crimes listed to potentially receive increased sentences; those 16 and 17-year-olds who have threatened someone with a knife could face mandatory custodial sentences which could result in an additional 400 young people being in custody per year.

Some young people were asked their thoughts and said this new mandatory sentence is not the way forward. As discussed on BBC Newsbeat, some young people said that the lawmakers are not understanding the reason WHY youth carry a knife in the first place. Their concerns were that some young people carry a knife because they are scared and they use it as a means of protection. Other young people commented and said that the new sentence would not act as a deterrent for young people – if they are going to carry a knife they will do it with or without the threat of consequences.

Currently offenders can be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence. This means that the offender can remain in custody until the parole board decides that they are no longer a threat to society. Indeterminate sentences are known to increase strain and stress on offenders and instead of participating in programs and focusing on how to become a better person, they are constantly thinking about and worried about the fact that they have no idea when they can be let out of custody. If you have been in custody for a long while and have started to become institutionalised, leaving custody can be just as frightening as arriving to custody.

With regards to the new sentences for knife crime, offenders could receive an automatic four-month detention and training order. On the first day of November the House of Commons will debate these new measures and potentially add them to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill which is, at the moment, going through Parliament.

For more information visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15464874




Comment: 

What are your comments regarding life sentences for a second violent or sexual offence? Do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Do you think the new mandatory custodial sentence for 16 and 17 year olds who threaten with a knife will act as a deterrent or do you think this could potentially be another method of net-widening?

A. Smith  
criminologyonthestreets@gmail.com 

Looking Closer at England Rioters, A. Smith

Looking Closer at England Rioters

A.Smith 

Information about those involved in the "disturbances" in England between August 6th - 9th 2011 has been released. The information has been condensed below. For more information visit the Justice Statistic Bulletin. 

*Click to enlarge photos 

So what do these figures tell us? Are these figures similar to the initial statements made by the press when the riots were first taking place?

                                         

When reading some of the quotes and responses of those involved or of friends and family of those involved, there seemed to be a common theme; some participated because they were bored, some because they were angry and frustrated, and others because they saw an opportunity to make money when in need. I am sure there are many other reasons as to why certain individuals were involved in the riots and I do not condone their actions or approve of what happened; however, I would hope that one of the government responses would be to address the frustrations expressed. 

Or maybe not. 
Wake up. 

A.Smith

criminologyonthestreets@gmail.com

*All posts are the opinion of the author.