OPINION
Give young delinquents some order in their lives
The story of James, the serial juvenile offender, is a tale for our
times. Aged 15, he is currently serving his third six-month jail
sentence. He has been known to the welfare agencies from the age of five
and to the police since he set fire to a school at the age of 10. Almost
certainly he was responsible for a far larger number of crimes than he
has ever admitted. The police detect only around a fifth of offences
committed by juveniles.
In a report today, the Audit Commission suggests that earlier, and
more effective, intervention in the lives of James and others like him
could have deflected him from the criminal path, and saved the taxpayer
the cost of locking him up.
But it is difficult to see what more could have been done. He was
subject to special measures from an early age and, while they could have
been better managed, the problem for James lay at home. His violent
father rarely visited, his sister was in jail and his mother could not
cope. All the initiatives in the world could not provide the comforts
and stability of a loving family.
Every effort was made to keep James out of custody despite a variety
of court appearances. There is growing pressure for more young offenders
to be given community-based sentences, especially the new intensive
supervision and surveillance programmes whereby the offender is tagged
and must attend special courses intended to curb offending.
The Audit Commission places great store by these programmes, though
they have not been in operation for long and the early signs are not
promising. On pilot schemes, 60 per cent of offenders have broken the
conditions. When the courts are deciding whether to send a young person
to jail, they must bear in mind the interests of the wider community —
the victims of his behaviour — not just those of the offender.
James is the despair of the authorities, who have sunk £150,000 into
a bewildering variety of interventions, punishment schemes, task forces
and judicial procedures designed to control his behaviour.
Until the 1960s, there was a network of “approved” schools whose
function was to keep such youngsters off the streets while providing
some cohesion to their lives in the hope of reforming their characters. Supporters considered these schools to be an enlightened and
practical approach to persistent delinquency by providing what these
young people lack most of all — some order in their lives.
The old system will not come back; and to establish an alternative,
such as a network of rehabilitation centres where offenders could go on
their release from custody and learn a skill, is expensive. But it may
be a price we have to pay.
22 January 2004
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/21/dl2101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/01/21/ixopinion.html
home
|