Public Perceptions about Youth Crime and Young Offenders - Literature review Example

Running header: Literature review Student’s name: Instructor’s name Subject code: Date of submission Public perceptions about youth crime and young offenders A review of literature Youth crime as well as offences by young persons has gained a lot of public and policy attention of late. Due to increased media coverage and improvement in technology hence public awareness of high profile cases involving the youth and images portraying hooded young people committing terrorist activities in their communities have given the public the perception that crime by young offenders is on the rise. The image of the youth in the eyes of thepublic is seemingly under threat. According to Cohen, the public perception on youth crime and young offenders has a great influence on the policy decisions adoptedby law enforcement agencies. However, it should be noted that there is bound to be a discrepancy between public’sperception and reality and hence likelihood of victimizing those accused and actual victimization. According to Cohen (2000), there is apparent discrepancy since the public views youth crime as increasing while research indicates the contrally. This literature review is aimed at analyzing existing literature on public perceptions about youth crime and young offenders with a view to establishing how this perception can be improved. Issues to be addressed in the literature review include the public perception of youth crime and whether this perception corresponds with actual levels of youth crime. The paper also looks at whether the perceptions greatlydiffer from what is reality. Arising from my research, public perception on youth crime and young offenders has not been researched extensively. However, the existing studies reveal a tendency by the public to overestimate the level of crime by the youth as well as the numbers of young offenders. Furthermore, studies reveal that public perceptions on youth crime are not always from personal experience. Studies conducted by Anderson et al (2005) implied that external factors which included reporting by the media rather than personal encounter have a great role to play in shaping how the public view youth crime as well as young offenders. In a survey conducted by Jared (2006) and involving 1600 respondents, it was revealed that there was a general misconception that youth crime was in the rise in major United Kingdom cities though there lacked data to support this perception. Sixty percent of the respondents in the research stated that there was a steady rise in youth crime with forty percent of the respondents reporting that youth crime had indeed increased in their localities. This was however contrally to less number of people having been victims of youth crime in the recent past. This is an indication that public perception on youth crime as well as number of young offenders is higher than it occurs in reality. A similar study conducted by Hugh and Roberts (2004) on public opinions on youth crime and young offenders in England and Wales and which involved 1762 respondents resulted in similar findings. The survey revealed that 75 percent of the respondents in the sample overestimated the contribution of young people to overall offending behavior. The respondents also believed that the number of young offenders was on the increase in the two previous years which was contrally to the data collected by police indicating that youth crime was on the decline.A research by Mark (2001) on the public opinion of youth crime in Johannesburg indicated that 30 percent of the respondents held the opinion that the youth were responsible for most crimes in the city. However, only about 20 percent of all the crimes that had happened in the city could be attributed to young people between ten and seventeen years. A survey of 1500 adults by Johannes (2009) also indicated similar results. According to the survey, the participants linked over 45% of crime to young offenders with over 30% of the respondents blaming half of the reported crimes on the youth. However, records from law enforcement agencies indicated that only 20 percent of crime could be attributed to young offenders. Studies have also been conducted in a bid to establish the public perception of what youth crime is. A study by Jade (2011) that involved 500 participants was aimed at establishing what the adults considered to be youth crime in their localities. The results revealed that 70 percent of the public believed that young offenders committed crimes by engaging in such acts as vandalism, graffiti, damages to cars and smashing windows as well as other criminal damages that youths commit. However, it is interesting to note that some participants included some very petty issues as what they understand to be youth crime with some claiming that informal groups of youth hanging about the street or parks regardless of their intent to be intimidating and therefore crime. Similar results were obtained by Janson (2007) in a similar research. In this case, the participants felt that youths hanging around in the streets to be a crime. In addition, vandalism, graffiti and deliberate damage to property or vehicles was also perceived as youth crime. However, in addition to the above findings, the problem of young people not treating other people with consideration and respect was also deemed youth crime. Similar results are also collaborated by a recent British Crime Survey in which 25 percent of respondents felt that the young people hanging around in the street was a youth crime while 21 percent of the respondents felt that damage to property was a big youth crime in their local areas ( Chaplin, et al., 2011).It should be noted that the above general perceptions about youth crime are quite different from what law enforcement agencies consider to be youth crimes. In a bid to establish reasons why the public would associate crime with young offenders, Anderson et al (2005) conducted a research involving 1600 people. From the survey, a majority of the respondents identified crime related problems that they associated with young offenders. These activities included hanging around together in groups along the streets, problems related with drug abuse and being idle. The indication of the research is that the behavior of young people as well as their being present as opposed to being real criminals has a great influence in shaping the public opinion about youth crime and young offenders. In the United Kingdom, the Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) conducted a best value user satisfaction survey that had similar results. The survey indicated that close to 60 percent of the respondents viewed young people hanging around streets as a big threat to security. They also indicated that young offenders abuse alcohol. This was control to a survey conducted on young offenders who termed alcohol as a big problem. As such, both the above studies bore similar indications that behavior and circumstances of the offenders in question other than actual prevalence play a great role in shaping public opinion about youth crime and young offenders. Amy (2012) conducted a survey to establish the public perception on the impact of youth crime to the society. The study involved 125 participants with some of them claiming that youth crime was responsible for degrading environment while undermining conservation efforts. They also reported that youth crime brings about insecurity making one feel uncomfortable and anxious. Some participants also voiced their concern about youth crime disrupting their day to day lives. A similar study has been carried out by Danson (2008) on the impact of youth crime in the US. The study indicated worrying effects of youth crime in the US. 80% of the participants in the study that involved 420 participants voiced their strongest concerns about fear of their young children falling victims of youth crime or they themselves becoming youth offenders. 70 percent of the participants also reported to having heard about a murder and a robbery by a youth offender. In a similar study by Innes (2002), 20 percent of the participants were concerned that youth crime would negatively affect their neighborhoods bringing down house prices and bringing up insurance premiums in areas known for youth crime. The study concludes that some seemingly small youth crimes can disproportionately affect a society’s or individual’s sense of security. Stewart (2011) conducted a study aimed at establishing what the society perceives to be the cause of youth crime in the society. 80 percent of the participants stated failure of parents, society and schools in disciplining children as the primary cause of youth crime and the rising number of young offenders. Majority of the participants blamed youth crime on poor parenting with some blaming parents for their failure to care and provide support and guidance for young people. In the study, 49 percent of the participants blamed youth crime on schools having lowered their standards of discipline with some calling for reinstatement of corporal punishment in schools. A study by Roberts (2004) however blames the rise in youth crime on how law enforcement agencies tackle youth crime. 15 percent of the participants saw poor administration and delivery of justice as the one to blame for therising youth crime. It was felt that young people no longer fear police while courts were blamed for being lenient on young offenders. 67% of the participants also blamed prisons for being too soft on young offenders. On the other hand, 80 percent of participants in a study by Millie et al (2005) blamed the increase in youth crime and young offenders on the general breakdown in social fabric. To them, lack of discipline in the society implied that youngpeople could operate without respect for authority while not being aware of the consequencesof their actions. Cunneen (2006) also conducted research to establish what the public perceives to be the cause of youth crime and the ever increasing number of young offenders in society. 400 hundred participants were involved in the research. While the study also established the above reasons as the cause of youth crime, 42% of the participants also felt the improvement in technology is also exposing the youth to crime. This includes such programs that portray people involved in crime as heroes in our television sets. Other forms of technology improvement that have a bearing on youth crime include the internet. Liebman (2008) also holds similar opinions resulting from a similar result that he conducted. Emerging technology was also seen as directly contributing to crime in his research. However, the most significant finding of the Liebman study is the link between drug abuse and youth crime and young offenders. In the crime and justice survey, a direct link between alcohol and youth crime has been established. The research included 200 participants who had also been victims of youth crime. 50% of these participants believe that their attackers were under the influence of a drug specifically alcohol. This research is also in line with data obtained from law enforcement agencies. The data suggests that close to fifty percent of young offenders are always under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. Barry and Susan (2007) conducted a survey to establish the attitude of US voters towards youth crime and the justice system. The survey had findings that are similar to the ones above on how the public perceives youth crime and young offenders. Of those surveyed, 90% viewed youth crime as a major problem in the community. However, the survey indicated that one’s race has a bearing on their participation in crime. It was indicated that voters are twice more likely to agree than disagree that nonwhite youth are more likely to be prosecuted in the adult criminal system. Regarding the corrective measures that should be undertaken for the young offenders, the survey indicated that majority or 90 % of the public would prefer rehabilitation services and treatment for incarcerated young offenders in a bid to prevent future youth crimes. On the other hand, the study indicated that 70 percent of the public believed that putting the young offenders in adult correctional facilities will make them more likely to commit future crime. The results of the above study are in line with a UNICEF (2010) on public views on juvenile offending in Barbados, Dominica and St. Lucia. In the study, 1500 respondents were selected. Majority of the respondents felt that there should be more counseling to deter youth crime. It also emerged that availability of mentorship programs, stricter laws and establishment of mentorship programs would help deter juvenile offending. Of all the correctional measures for young offenders, corporal punishment was the least prevalent method attracting no respondent. On the other hand, 57 percent of the respondents supported rehabilitation. On the other hand, 20 percent of the respondents felt that parents are responsible for their children’s upbringing and hence should be incarcerated if their children committed crime. In a research conducted by Marks (2001) that involved 1001 on how young offenders should be rehabilitated had similar findings. The research indicated that 90% of the public supported preventive measures to youth crime as well as rehabilitating young offenders rather than imprisoning them. The same group was also against locking young offenders together with adult inmates. In the same study, it was also revealed that 90% of the public believes that wealthy juveniles are less likely to commit crime than poor juvenile. When they commit the same crime, the study indicated that wealthy young offenders are less likely to be locked up for the crime. In research carried out by Jessica and Army (2012), opinion was dividend on how the society and the state ought to deal with young offenders. While 80 percent of the participants were broadly positive about restorative justice as a useful approach in tackling youth crime, most of them gave it a qualified support. Their view was that restorative justice is only appropriate whendealing with low level offenders. Most of the participants thought that restorative justice is only effective and fair for the low-level offenders, the very young offenders or first time offenders. For most persistent and serious offenders, the participants felt the offenders ought to face more overtly punitive strategies. Conclusion This literature review has revealed that the public perception about youth crime is not in line with the available data and hence the reality. The public’s perception has overestimated the extent to which crime is related to young offenders. Similarly, the public seems to have the wrong view of the youth since even youths groupings regardless of their intent are regarded to be for the purpose of arranging how to commit crime. It has also been revealed that people would prefer restorative justice and rehabilitation as the strategies for dealing with youth crime. Arising from research, it has also been established that parents have a great role in child upbringing and hence preventing crime. Future research should therefore be geared towards establishing why the public have misconceptions regarding youth crime. According to Army (2012), the media is to blame for fueling the misconceptions about youth crime. As such, it is important that future research be geared towards establishing such facts. References: Cohen, S (2000), Folk devils and moral panics, the creation of the mods and rockers, London, MacGibbon and Kee. Anderson, S, Bromley, C&, Given, L2005, The public attitudes towards young people and youth crime in Scotland: Findings from the 2004 Scottish social attitudes survey, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive. Jared, M2006, Crime and society, New York, John Wiley & Sons. Hugh, M&, Roberts, J2004, Youth crime and youth justice: Public opinion in England and Wales, Bristol: Policy Press. Mark, S 2001, Public opinion on youth, crime and race, Retrieved on 27th March, from; http://cclp.org/documents/BBY/advocacyguide.pdf Johannes, P2009, Youth crime and youth justice: Researching criminal justice, London, Rutledge. Jade, G2011, Public attitude to youth crime: Focus group research, New York, John Wiley’s & Sons. Jansson, K2007, British crime survey: Measuring crime for 25 years. London, Home Office. Chaplin, R, Flatley, J&, Smith, K2011, Crime in England and Wales 2010/11: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime, London: Home Office. The Department for Communities and Local Government 2010, Citizenship survey 2010-11, Cohesion research, Statistical Release number 12, London, Department for Communities and Local Government. Amy, B2012, Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Danson, B2008, Evidence about the health and well-being needs of children and young people in contact with the youth justice system, London, Rutledge. Innes, M2002,From community to communicative policing: Signal crimes and the problem of public reassurance, London, Rutledge. Stewart, W2011, Parents dust down the cane, London, Rutledge. Roberts, J2004, Youth crime and youth justice, Bristol, Policy Press. Millie, J, McDonald, E&, Hough, M2005, Antisocial behavior strategies: Finding a balance, London, The policy press Cunneen, C2006, Restorative Justice, London, Sage. Liebman, M2008, Restorative Justice, Cullompton, Willan. Barry, K&, Susan, M 2007, Attitude of US voters towards youth crime and the justice system, Retrieved on 27th March 2015, from http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/focus-voters-and-youth.pdf UNICEF, 2010, Views on juvenile offending, Retrieved on 27th March 2015, from; http://www.unicef.org/easterncaribbean/Juvenile_Offing_Study_WEB.pdf Read More