特殊类型罪犯矫治

（英文）

Nnit 1 Crime Prevention And Reductiong

Unit Summary:• 1) Human prevention• 2) Technical prevention• 3) Eliminnation of stolen

property receivers

Part 1 Warming upCrime Survey

The following questions refer only to things thathappened to You or Your partner during the last six year.

You Your partner

1.Did you have your (pocket picked/purse snatched)? 2.Did anyone take something(else) directly from you you by using force,such as a stickup,mugging or threat? 3.What kind of crimes mostly disturb you and your family members? 4.Was anything stolen from you while you were away from home,for instance, at home, in a theatre, or rest- aurant, or while traveling?

Part 1 Warming up

5.Have you ever had your bike stolen?

6.Did you find any evidence that someone attemp-

ted to steal something that belonged to you?(oth-

er than any incidents already mentioned)

7.Did you call the police during the last six years

to report something that happened do you which

you thought was a crime?

8.Did any of your family members become a vic-

tim of a certain crime?

Part 2 Reading ComprehensionNew Perspective On The Larceny

In 1999 there were over two million reported burglaries, nearly s-

even million larcenies and over one million motor vehicle thefts in

the united states. The estimated total dollar value of the loss was ne-

arly $15 billion. Thieves steal the property not to possess it but to

convert it into something of value, like cash or drugs. The disposal

of this stolen property is a major hurdle that must be overcome by

the thief.

Fifteen billion dollars of stolen property ends up in circulation;in

the hands of a generally law abiding public. A public that is unawa-

re it is supporting and enabling criminal activity; a public that can-

not pass up a good deal and unaware it is committing a crime; a

public that buys from what appear to be legitimate businesses. The traditional police response to property crime is reactive. A Police unit may respond to the scene, take a report and conduct a preliminary investigation. The sheer number of offenses usually far exceeds the capability if most departments’resourse, preclud-ing a detailed investigation. Secondly, these crimes are usually committed in the absence of witnesses and are among the most difficult to close. On the continuum of severity, these property crimes fall low Priority. So, as long as the police response continues to be reacti-ve, it well always be padding up stream. This reactive approach by its very nature is a major limitation.

The alternative is a proactive police approach to property crime,targeting the demand side of the stolen property markets instead of the reactive supply side. This approach increases the thieves’Major hurdle of disposal and conversion of stolen property. A symbiotic relationship exists between the thief and receiversof stolen property. Thieves cannot survive without receivers of st-olen property. The ability of the thief to market stolen property determines success of his criminal activities. In the absence of so-meone to purchase or convert stolen property, the criminal act ofstealing becomes a useless endeavor. The receivers of stolen pro-perty fill the thief’s need. Law enforcement has neglected the powerful and intimate rela-

tionship between the thief and those who sell stolen property.

Police have paid more attention to arresting the thieves than inve-

stigating and prosecuting those who receive stolen property.

This is not a new phenonmenon. The role of receivers in prop-

erty crime was recognized in the late 18th century by Patrick Col-

quhoun in his book A Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis in

1795.He wrote “Nothing …can be more just than the old observa-

tion, that if there were no receiver there would be no thieves…

Deprive a thief of a saft and ready market for his good and he is

undone.”

New words 1.perspective n. 观点，透视2.larceny n.非法侵占他人财产；偷盗罪3.hurdle n.障碍4.pass up 放过5.legitimate adj.合法的6.preliminary adj.预备的；初步的7.sheer adj.绝对的；纯粹的8.preclude vt. 排除9.continuum n.统一体10.paddle vi.涉水11.proactive adj.积极置前的12.symbiotic adj.相互共存的13.market vt.在市场上销售

Exercise read the test and select the best answers. 1.The estimated total dollar value of the loss was nearly $15 billion,

which is mainly caused by .

a. burgaries b. larcenies

c. The theft of motor vehicle d. property-related crimes

2.It can be safely reasoned that the ordinary citizens’unconscious

purchase of the stolen property most probably will lead to one

day.

a.The victimization of themselves.

b.The reduction of burglaries in the neighborhood.

c.The satisfaction of criminal financial desir, so that they may stop

their activities.

d.The police’s difficulty in creaking down these cases.

Unit 2 New Technology in Low Enforement

Unit Summary:• 1) Some police gear• 2) Fingerprint technology• 3) Polygarph

Part 1 warming upPolicing Technology Survey

You Your partner

1.Do you know about the use of the GPS law en-

focement？2.Do you know about the DNA test in criminal in-

vestigation?

3.Do you know about the bugs used by the derec-

tive?

4.What’s APIS used by traffic policemen?

5.Do you know about the use of metal detectors or

scanners?

6.Do you know about the cameras in the crime

prevention and traffic violations?

7.Do you know about the night vision devices

used by policemen on night shifts?

8.Do you know about the use of bio-sensors?

Part 2 Reading Comprehension

New Fingerprint Technology Fringerprint technology has developed more in its pasr 15 years

than it did in the first 100 years. Advancement in technology have

led to new capabilities allowing investigations to pull prints from su-

rfaces that used to be very difficult or ever impossible.

The key points to any of the following systems include accuracy,

reliability, ease of use, open system design (compatibility to various

Computer platforms), easy serviceability and expandability.

There are several innovative products —IBIS, TENPRINTER, Fi-

ngePrinter CMS, faceit and BNP —that are providing law enforce-

Ment with shape future investigation and crime prevention method-

ology.

The product with the greatest potential to impact officers in the

short-term is IBIS, a revolutionary moblie identification system that

captures forensic quality fingerprints and photographs. TENPRINTER

and FingerPrinter CMS are live scan systems, which capture fingerpri-

nt images without the use of ink. Law enforcement, government agenc-

ies, airport, banks and ather commercial institution using these systems.

FaceIt is a widely deployed facial recognition software that allows

computers to rapidly and accurately detect and recognize faces. Its uses

include ID veridication, surveillance, information security and banking.

BNP incorporates FaceIt technology for implementation over large-

scale netword and real-time identification.

IBIS is a handheld portable device known as a remote data terminal

(RDT), which captures data(including photographs), forensic-qualityfingerprint images and magnetic stripe data. The data id transmitted wirelessly to a laptop in a squad car and to the central IBIS server viathe police radio communication system or cellular communications. At the IBIS server ,the data is processed and transferred to one or mo-re AFIS databases. If a fingerprint match exists, identification imfor-mation is transferred back to the RDT. If there is no match, the fing-erprint and photo files are discarded from the system. Fingerprint scanning capability while officers are on patrol is highly desirable, but dependable technology is just coming around. A report released by a group of experts after the first week of op-eration indicated IBIS was used 173 times in test and operational sce-narios, returning 71 matches, including four individuals who gave

false imformation to officers, against the Automated Fingerprint iden-

tIfication System(AFIS). The experts confirmed the imformation to

returned by IBIS and identified ourstanding warrants against the indi-

viduals. Additionally, IBIS successfully identified a body found in an

apparent suicide of an indicidual who had a prior criminal recoed.

The future application of these technologies will keep law enfore-

ment current in a technology-driven world that is rapidly changing on

all fronts.

New Words 1. compatibility n.适用性2. serviceability n.操作性3. expandability n.兼容性4. methodology n.方法5. forensic adj.法医的6. scan vt/vi.扫描7. deploy vt/vi.布置8. verification n.核实9. magnetic stripe 磁条10. laptop n.手提电脑11. squad car 警车12. cellular adj.蜂窝状的13. server n.服务器

Exercise please decide whether the following are ture or false according to the text.

( ) 1. Fingerprint technology advanced much more slowly in the pastone hundred years than it has in the recent fifteen years.( ) 2. These innovative devices will play an important role in the

inv-esitigation and preventive work.( ) 3. FaceIt will be most effective of all the products.( ) 4. IBIS will be most widely used whether in law enforcement orfinancial businesses.( ) 5. FaceIt and other innovative products have been applied widelyin the American Law enforcement.( ) 6.The successful matching rate done by IBIS is 41%.( ) 7.To the cirme scene investigation, FaceIt is more useful becausethey can save much time in taking the fingerprints they police depart-ment to match.

Unit 3 Foreign Prisoner

Pre-reading Questions • 1) What is the definition of foreign

prisoner?• 2) what are the difficulties foreign

prisoners usually face? How can prisons help them to deal with these problems?

Unit 3 Foreign PrisonerReading Comprehension

Foreign prtisoner The term “foreign prisoner” has many shades of meaning.Generallyspeaking, it means a prisoner who has a foreigon nationality, but

sometimes it includes “foreign-boen prisoner” or “foreign detainee”. Everynation has among its prisoners a number who are citizens of foreign countries, and the available evidence suggests that the number of for-eign prisoners seems to be on the increase. The nation that propably has the highest proportion of foreigners in its prisons is Malaysia, forwhom the national report indicates that 21 per cent of the total(6,118 out of 28,891) were foreigners. There are a number of possible categ-ories of foregin prisoners, drug-related crimes are shooting up. The characteristics of crime may be classified by nationality. In Japan,

larceny is the most prevalent offenses committed by foreigners. In Sri

Lanka, there are many foreigners committing child abuse. As for thai-

land,a lot of foreign prisoners have committed drug-related crimes

mostly drug trafficking.

Being in custody in a foreigne land with different languages, one

will certainly have a lot of difficulties in adapting himself/herself.the

stress, anxiety, and frustration are compounded by the fact that comm-

unicaion is minimal. Foreign prisoners have disadvantages in commu-

nication with prison officers. They cannot easily understand prison

regulations and the instructions of officers. Gradually, some foreign

prisoners come to feel estanged and reflect their problems by filing

Objections to various authorities expressing negative reports on prison

administrations. On entering an institution, it is important that all rele-vant information is made available to the inmates. Rules and regula-tions, prepared in the languages of the prisoners will be of assistanceto better communication. The need for cultural awareness is anothercountermeasure that can alleviate unnecessary stess caused by lack ofunderstanding. Unlike local prisoners, there are other obstacles concerning foreignprisoners. Firsr, foreign prisoners have different life styles in term of culture, food, and religion. For effective treatment of foreign

prisoners,some specific facilities and acticities have to be provided to satisfy theneed of health care, religious practice and food restriction. Second, it is difficult to obtain information about the foreign prisoners because criminal justice agencies of different countries do not share infor-mation on a regular basis. Lack of information may lead to an

Underestimation of risks, such as the possibility of escape. In this reg-ard, the treatment of foreign prisoners can not be handle in an effecti-ve way. It is important for the prison officer to gei sufficient informa-tion, so that proper custodial measurements and/or rehabilitative pro-grams can be arranged. Third, foreign prisoners may lack legal infor-mation and have no access to legal aid. Most foreign prisoners receiveno visits from their family ot telatives and have no contact from theoutside world. They basically have to depend upon their diplomaticrepresentative. Assistance extended by embassies is valuable becauseit comes from the prisoner’s compatriots and it makes a linkage of theForeign prisoners with their respective countries. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Recognizes that a foreign detainee hasIndividual rights, including the right to imformation regarding consular

assistance. Prison officers should seek cooperation with embassiws of

foreign prisoners. The contact with embassies can also lead to soomth

implementation of deportation or transfer of foreign prisoners.

It is quite obvious that all countries need to review their policies

and procedures as it relates to the treatment of foreign offenders. The

special circumstances of foreigners place them in the category of

vulnerable prisoners. The specific problems encountered by these pri-

soners may vary depending on their indicidual circumastances. If the

prison does not take good care of this problem, the prisoners may suf-

fer from serious loss in their mental/physical health. With respect to

care, specific consideration should be given to the different needs of

foreign prisoners.

New Words

1. shade n.细微差别2. courier n.走私者3. larceny n.盗窃罪4. estranged adj.疏远的，不和的

5. countermeasure n.对策，反措施6. obstacle n.障碍，妨害物7. extend vt.给予，提供8. compatriot n.同国人，同胞9. consular adj.领事的10. detainee n.被拘留者11. deportation n.驱逐，驱逐出境12. vulnerable adj.易受攻击的

ExerciseContent Awareness.Questions about the Text

1.Which country has the highest proportion of foreign prisoners in the prison？2.In sri lanka, what is the most prevalent offence committed by foreignprisoners?3.Why is it difficult for foreign prisoners ro adapt themselves to theenviroment?4.How will foreign prisoners reflect their problems if they feel estranged?5.Why is it difficult to obtain information concerning the foreign prisoners?6.Why couldn’t most prison officers get sufficient imformation?7.According to 36 of the Vienna Conventing on Consular Relations, what kind of right does a foreign detainee enjor?

Unit 4 Extradition Extradition

The problems of crimes affect the public security and the economicstability of the country. With the technological develoment, vatious crimes such as economid crmes,computer crimes and drug traffickingstart to move across the boundaries of two or more countrise. There isstrong evidence that transnational crime has become more prevlant andserious today than ever before. The growth and expansion of transnat-ional crimes stimulate many authorities to improve and implement the meansure at international levels with the main purpose of punishing

thealleged offenderd in order to strengthen and lubricate the criminal just-ice system. Extradition and bilateral agreements on mutual legal assist-ance in criminal matters are considered valuable tools in the fight agai-nst transnational crimes.

Generally,extradition treaties provide that a state is obligated to ex-tradite persons to another state when the other state shows that the person is sought for trial for a crime allegedly committed within thejurisdiction of that state or for punishment for a crime committed inthat state after conviction and flight from that state. Historically, the practice of extradition has existed for over 3,000 years. During this period, treaties and customs slowly formalized the extradition processand placed limitations on the power of the sovereign. In 1990, the Un-ited Nations elaborated the Model Treaty on Extradition, which foll-ows a standard format of modern exreadition law and practice. The parties would agree to extradite to each other, upon request, and subj-ect to the terms of the treaty, a person who is wanted in the requestingstate for prosecution for an extradition offence or for the imposition or

enforcement of a sentence in respect of such an offence. Extradition is appropriate only when formal charges have been is-sued against the fugitive. Extradition is a criminal matter and not app-ropriate for obtaining or enforcing a civil judgment. Countries that are signatories to multilateral treaties are bound to honor the extradit-ion of those agreements. Extradition treaties generally contain certaincommen features. It is generally recognized that the principle of reci-procity underlines the whole structure of extradition. Extradition sh-ows that where general extradition relationd are governed by a tready,either bilateral or multilateral, reciprocity may be guaranteed. Double criminality is a very important prinpciple in extradition law. It requststhat an act shall not be extraditable unless it constitutes a crime underthe laws of both the requesting and the requested state. In many

countries, the inerpretation of double criminality is not strictly adhered

to in order to provide mutual assisrance in crimial matters as much as

possible. The rule of speciality is a principle embodied in the extraditi-

on rules. It implies that the fugitive shall only be tried in the requesting

state for those offences for which surrendered. This exception protect

the individual against peosecution on additional charges by receiving

immunity through the extradition law. The political offense exception

is a very sensitive issue, in that what is considered purely political off-

enses and what is left to the parties concerned for interpretation needs

careful examination. Faced with terriorist acts against civilian popula-

tions, albeit for political ends, government have begun considering nar-

owing the political offense exception. The differences in legal system

as they relate to captital punishment vary according to religions,cultural

political and other concerns. Most bilateral and multilated treaties in

extradition deny surrending trhe offender if the offence for which

Extradition is requested is punishable bu death under the law of reque-

sting state, unless the aythority of that state guarantees that the death

penalty will not be imposed.

New Words 1. extradition n.(根据条约或法令对逃犯等 )引渡

2. exradite vt.引渡（逃犯、囚犯等）3. extraditable adj.（逃犯、囚犯等）可引渡的4. alleged adj.有嫌疑的5. lubricate vt.作出某事以使行动等顺利进展6. bilateral adj. 双边的7. obligated vt.使负义务8. flight n.逃亡、逃走9. formalize vt.使正式10. elaborate vt.详细阐述11. imposition n.强迫接受12. prosecution n.起诉13. fugitive n.逃亡者，亡命者

Exercises 1.Historically, the pratice of extradition has existed for over years.

A)1,000 B)2,000 C)3,000 D)4,000

2.Extradition is a(n) matter.

A) civil B)crimial C)executive D)administration

3.It is generally recognized that underlines the whole structure

of extradition.

A)double criminality B)the rule of speciailty

C)the political offence exception D)the principle of reciprocity

4.The Internation Community’s concern is to make progress in

Crime.

A)putting down B)putting aside

C)putting across D)putting away

Unit 5 Justifying Punishment

Justifying PunishmentIn chapter 1 we argued that the most crucial factor in the current mal-aise in the penal system is the ‘crisis of legitimacy’. A social institu-tion is ‘legitimate’ if it is perceived morally justified; the problem wi-th the penal system is that this perception is lacking and many peopleinside and outside the system believe that it is morally indefenside, orat least defective. We need to investigate whether such moral percept-ions are accurate, if only to know what should be done about them. Ifthey are inaccurate, then the obvious strategy would be to try to recti-fy the percetions, by persuading people that the system is not unjust after all. But if the perceived injustices are real, then it is those injust-ces which should be rectidied. This chapter accordingly deals with the moral philosophy of punnishment and attempts to relate the philo-

sophy of punnishment and attempts to relate the philosophical issue tothe reality of penal systems such as that of England and Wales today. The basic moral question about punnishment is an age-old one : ‘what justifies the infliction of punishment on people?’ punishing

peo-ple certainly needs a justification, since it is almost always something which is harmful, painful or unpleasant to the recipient. The two most frequently cited justifications for punishment are retribution, and what we call redutivism(following Walker,1972). Retributiviam justifies punnishment on the ground that it is deserved by the offender; reductivism justifies punishment on the ground that it helps to reduce the incidence of crime. Reductivism is a forward-looking(or’consequentialist’) theory:it seeks to justify punishment by its alleged future consequences. If

punnishment is inflicted, it is claimed, the incidence of crime will beless than it would be if no penalty were imposed. How is it claimed that punishment reduces crime? There are several alleged mechanisms of reduction, which we shall discuss in turn.Deterrence Essentially, deterrence is the simple idea that the incidence of crime is reduced because of people’s fear or apprehension of the punishm-ent they may receive if they offend- that, in the words of Home Sec-retary Michael Howard addressing the Conservative Party conferencein 1993, ‘Prison works… it makes many who are tempted to commitcrime twice’.(More recently, Consercative leader William Hague alsoendorsed deterrence theory in calling for a criminal justice systemthat’ scares the hell out of criminals’-The Guardian ,19 May 2000.)

there are two kinds of deterrence, known as ‘individual’ and ‘general’

deterrence.

Individual deterrence occurs when someone commits a crime, is

Punished for it, and finds the punishment so unpleasant or frightening

that the offence is never repeated for fear of more of the same treat-

ment, or worse.

This research evidence seems contrary to common sense, but such

findings are not as incomprehenside as they look at first sight. They do

not show that punishment has no deterrent effect on offenders, or that

no offender is ever deterred.

So the nation of individual deterrence seems to be of little value in

justifying our penal practices. But there is another, perhaps more prom-

ising category of deterrent effect: general deterrent.

Now, there can be little doubt that the existence of a system of puni-shmemt has some general deterrent effect. When, during the SecondWorld War, the German occupiers deported the entire Danish police force for several months, recorded rates of theft and robbery (though not of sexual offences) rose spectaculary (Christiansen, 1975; Bey-lebeld,1980:159). This dose not mean that deterrence never works, but it dose meanthat its effects are limited and easy to overestimate. There are severalreasons for this. There truths were officially recognized by the Conservative govern-ment in 1990, before Mr Howard’s announcement that’prison works’. All of this suggests that, while general deterrence might form the basis of a plausible general justification for having a system of punish-

ment, it is more difficult to atgure that the amount of punishment imp-

osed by our system is justifiable by deterrent considerations.

A utilitarian deterrence theorist ought to conclude from this that the

English penal system is an immoral one. Jeremy bentham (1970:179)

himself propounded the principle of ‘frugality’ (or ‘parsimony’),which

states that punishments should be no more severe than they need to be

produce a utilitarian quantity of deterrence.

Unit 6 Prisons and the Penal Crisis Prisons and the Penal Crisis

Of all the punishments inflicted within the English penal system, imp-risonment is both the most important and the most problematic in termof its impact on the rest of the system. Other penalties may be impos-ed with greater frequency, but imprisonment can still justifiably be described as the dominant method of punishment whinth the Englishpenal system. This is not just because it is the severest penalty availale. In part itis because the courts have traditionally been prepared for a invoke thissupposed’sanction of last resort’ as a routine penalty for a wide range of not-so-serious,noncviolent property offences. Yet custody is by far the most expensive of all penal measures: in the financial year 1997-8 the estimated monthly cost of keeping a

prison was £2,070, which is approximately 11 times the cost of a one-month’s probation supervision(£183) and 15 times as expensive as a month’s community service supervision(Home Office,1990:73).The functions and aims of imprisonmentThe social functions of imprisonmentHistoricall, the birth of the modern prison was part of a much broadermovement in which ‘institutions’ of various kinds came to be adpotedas the solution to a wide range of social problems. The start of this ‘great confinement’(foucault,1967:cn.2) can be traced back to the 1600s, though the repacement of physical suffering by imprisonmentas the dominant form of punishment(a process that foucault drcscibedas the ‘great transformation’)did not take place until the end of the ei-ghteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries. This coincided

with the emergence of industrial capitalism as the dominant mode of

prodution in all the large European countries.

In Chapter 3 we discussed some of the sociological explanations

which have been but forword for the rise of the prison. An interesting

radical explanation for the continued existence of the prison has been

put forward by Norwegian penologist Thomas Mathiesen(1974,1990,

2000).

The second he calls ‘the power-draining function’, since those

who are contained in this way are not only prevented from interfering

with the normal processes of production but are also denied the oppo-

rtunity to exercise responsibility, since the institution in which they

are contained is designed to function on the basis of mininal pratical

contributions from the prisoners themselves.

This is closely related to a fourth function, the ‘diverting function’ of imprisonment. Here Mathiesen draws attention to the fact that the commission of socially harmful acts is by no means the prerogative ofone particular section of society. Perhaps, however, imprisonment is not so functional to modern capitalism as Mathiesen suggests, for there is also a heavy price to be paid, not only in terms of resources and human suffering, but also in managing the increasing tensions that are associated with steadily wo-rsening penal crisis – as we shall see.Official aims of imprisonmentAt an official level, a rather diffenent set of ideas- or ideologies- hassought over the years to justify(or legitimate) the English prison syst-em. The fact that these ideologies have largely failed to convince even those working within the Prison Sevice is largely to blame for the

crisis of legitimacy in which it now finds itself. Changing ideas about the official aims of imprisonment at the

timewere summarized in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the United Kingdom Prison Services which reported in 1979under the Chairmanship of Lord Justice May(1979). The ascendancy of the treatment ethic was soon to be underminedby the collapse of the rehabilitative ideal in the 1970s, however(see Chapters 1 and 2). The problem confronting the Committee stemmed from its conviction that no alternative philosophy commanding wide public supporthad taken the place of the treatment model. In 1988 the Prison Department adopted a ‘Statement of Purpose’which read as follows:

Her majesty’s prison service serves the public by keeping in custodaythose committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and to help them to lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and on release. This statement of purpose has since been revised, and the official role of the prison service is currently expressed in home office aim 4,which refers to the: ‘effective execution of the sentence of the courts as to reduce reoffending and peotect the poblic’. In support of this General aim, the prison service has the folloeing two more specificObjective:1.To protect the public by holding those committed by the courts in asafe, decent and healthy environment;2.To reduce crime by providing constructive regimes which address

offending behaviour, improve educational and work skills and promote

law-abiding behaviour in costody and after release.

In addition, the Prison Service has, with the agreement of ministers,

set out thirteen Key Performance Indicator(KPIs) which identify a

number of targets and provide a set of self-imposed measures by which

Its performance can be measured.

Unit 7 Young Offenders: SystemsManagement or System Disaster?

Young Offenders: SystemsManagement or System Disaster?

There is a curious ambivalence in what durkheim(see chapter3)would have called our ‘young thug’ is a perennial focus for fear,hatred and periodic ‘moral panics’(pearson,1983; cohen,1980),and this sometimes leads to particularly punitive measures beingDevised for young offenders. Examples include the ‘short,sharpshock ’ detention centre in 1980 and the ‘boot camp’ in the 1990s.On the other hand, our attitudes towards’children in trouble’can also be infected with the sentimentality evoked by children gener-ally in our culture, which can lead to less punitive measures being countenanced for them. Perhaps because of this ambivalence, the

history of the penal treatment of young offenders has been especiallychequered and contradictory. Experience in England and Wales in the last few decades shows this particularly well. An act of parliament(the Children and young Persons act 1969)which was intended to create a radically new andmore lenient system for dealing with juvenile offenders led paradox-ically, to a massive increase in the incarceration of young people in the 1970s. In the 1980s, despite an apparently discouraging politicalclimate, developments in juvenile justice were hailed as highly succ-essful in reducing the custody rate for young people and as showingthe way forward for more general reform of the criminal justice sys-tem. But these approaches to youthful offending were in turn to fall out of favour with the government in the 1990s as the pendulum

swung against the young offender once more. Currently, the trend to-wards harsher treatment for youthful offenders is still under way; butat the same time there are some developments pointing in a more hu-mance direction.Young people and crimeThere hardly seems to have been a trime, at least since the eatly ninet-eenth century, when the criminal activity of young people has not Been a cause of major pulic concern. We seem to be repeatedly told,not least by the media, that crime among young people is a serious and ever-worsening problem,often in contrast to a previous golden age (typically located 20 years in the past) when youth posed no greatthreat to public order and safety. If we check the historival record,however, we find that at the time of the supposed golden age people

were saying exactly the same things(Pearson,1983). It is true that adolescents do appear to commit a disproportionate nu-mber of crimes compared with their elder. In 1999,41 per cent of peop-le found guilty of or cautioned for an indicateble offence in england andWales were under 21. As the above figures suggest, offending by young people is in the gr-wat majority of cases a transient phenomenon of adolescence. Research studies(see for example, Balson, 1975; West, 1982; Graham and Bo-wing,1995) suggest that most young people commit at least some minoroffences, which in the main go undetected, while even the ones who arerepeatedly caught offending in their teens typically ‘grow out of crime’as thwy progress to adulthood (Osborn and West,1980; rutherfors,1992:ch.2; Flood-Page et al.,2000:18-19).

And yet young people continue to contribute substantially to the ‘numbers crisis’ in the custodial system. In general, young offenders represent a crucial facet of the penal crisis. For while, on the one hand, concern about young offenders hasplayed an important part in fuelling the ideology of law and order andthereby woresening the crisis, recent ecperience of dealing with yo-ung offenders successfully has also indicated some ways in which thecrisis could be defused if the right lessons could be learned and appli-ed.Young offenders: the legal framworkChildren under ten(the ‘age of criminal respondibility’) cannot be

pro-secuted for offences at all. However, children below (and indeed abo-ve) this age can be made trhe subject of civil care and supervision

order under the Children Act 1989 if the child’s interests are felt to

required it. If certain criteria are met, a child can be placed in secure

accommodation within the system of local anthority care(see further

Cabadin, 1994b).

‘Jucenile’ offenders-between their tenth and eighteenth birthdays-

form a particular legal category. The youth justice system which deals

with offenders between these ages is summarized in diagram form in

rigure 9.1, which differs in certain respects from the equicalent sche-

me for adults shown in Figure 1.1 in the Introduction.

One difference between juvenile and adult offenders relates to wh-

at for adults is known as the ‘cautioning’ of offenders by the police

as an alternative to prosecution.

The rules as ro remand in custody prior to trial also differ for you-

ng suspects (under the age of 17). If not left at liberty or conditional-

ly free on bail, young offenders may be remanded to live in local au-

thority accommodation, which may be secure accommodation if cer-

tain criteria are met.

Transitional Page