Public Attitudes To Youth Crime Report On Focus Group Research

3y ago
71 Views
2 Downloads
506.93 KB
33 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Cade Thielen
Transcription

Public attitudes to youth crimeReport on focus group researchJessica Jacobson and Amy KirbyInstitute for Criminal Policy ResearchJuly 2012Occasional Paper 105ISBN 978 1 84987 929 3The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of theHome Office (nor do they represent Government policy).

CONTENTSSummary2-41 Introduction5-62 Local concerns7-113 Participants’ views on four scenarios of youth offending12-174 Restorative justice18-215 Community involvement in youth crime and justice22-266 Conclusion27-28References29-30Annex A Pre-discussion questionnaire findings31-321

SummaryThis paper reports the findings of a series of focus groups set up to explore public attitudesto youth crime. The topics included the respondents‟ views of: the extent of crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the local community and theperceived causes of these; restorative justice; and volunteering and the role of the community in preventing crime and in supportingyouth justice.One hundred and twenty five participants took part including: 57 men and 68 women aged18-76 years old. Around one-third were parents of secondary school-aged children and justover two-thirds were White. A focus group methodology was used to look at the range anddiversity of public attitudes to youth crime, and the reasons behind these views. The findingsare not representative of the general population, but explore complex issues across a broadcross-section of the general public.Local problems of youth crime and anti-social behaviourIn the first part of each discussion participants were asked about their neighbourhoods andwhat they perceived to be the main problems of youth crime and ASB. They spoke mostlyabout two issues. First, they talked about the intimidating presence of groups of youngpeople on the streets and in parks. These groups were not seen as „gangs‟ but rather asinformal groups that participants found intimidating. The extent and nature of the problemsascribed to these groups varied, but primarily participants spoke about relatively minornuisance and disruptive behaviour, or behaviour that could be deliberately threatening andabusive, but that did not tend to develop into outright violence. The second issue wasvandalism and other criminal damage committed by young people. Participants spoke ofgraffiti, damage to cars, and smashed windows. Many participants believed that this had acorrosive impact on the physical environment and on how people felt about theirneighbourhoods.Participants tended to argue that parents, schools and society have failed to disciplinechildren and that this is the primary cause of youth crime and ASB. Poor parenting washighlighted as a key issue in all focus groups. Participants felt that an absence of disciplinemeant that children are „running wild‟; growing up without respect for authority or anunderstanding that their actions have consequences. A weak, ineffectual criminal justicesystem was also seen, by some, as part of the overall picture of poor discipline, as was a2

wider breakdown in the sense of community and associated informal control. Other factorssaid to contribute to problems of youth crime were: boredom and lack of constructiveactivities (although some strongly disputed this point); peer pressure; the ready availability ofdrugs and alcohol; and the desensitising effects of the mass media and electronic games.Responses to four youth crime scenariosFocus group participants were presented with four scenarios of youth crime and asked toselect a „disposal‟ for each from a menu of formal and informal options. Disposals aresanctions applied either by the police or the court to an individual following a guilty plea orverdict. In this instance disposals comprised: informal police warning; informal restorative work with the police; police warning/reprimand; fine; community sentence; or prison.There were mixed views from participants about which of these sanctions were mostappropriate. Their complaints about poor discipline as the root causes of youth crime did nottranslate into highly punitive responses to the scenarios. Rather, their responses revealed asubstantial degree of support for tackling low-level offending without resort to formalprosecution. For the first three scenarios, which included criminal damage, ASB andshoplifting, most participants selected a pre-court disposal: informal warning; informalrestorative work; formal police warning/reprimand; or some other pre-court option. Only thescenario involving violence against a person provoked widespread calls for prosecution andrelatively tough punishment.Four themes recurred in participants‟ comments about these scenarios: Participants felt it was important for young perpetrators of crime and ASB to betaught to understand the consequences of their actions and to make amends. Many participants were concerned about the potentially damaging long-term impactof a criminal record on a young person‟s prospects, and saw this as a reason foradopting informal rather than formal responses. Participants often considered that a first offence merits an informal or lesser formalresponse by the authorities, but that tougher action is required for repeatmisdemeanours.3

Lastly, some participants wanted young offenders to experience a degree of„embarrassment‟ or „humiliation‟ as part of the disposal that they receive.Restorative justiceA general discussion of whether restorative justice is a useful approach to tackling youthcrime followed. Most participants appeared to be broadly positive about restorative justice.However, many qualified their support by stating that it is mostly, or only, appropriate fortackling low-level offending, offending by the very youngest perpetrators or first-timeoffenders. Restorative justice was thought to be most effective and most fair under thesecircumstances. More persistent or serious offenders should face more overtly punitiveresponses. Some participants felt that the value of restorative justice was that offendershave to face their victims, and understand the consequences of their offending. This mayhave a profound, transformative effect on their behaviour.Community justiceIn the final part of each discussion participants were asked about their views onvolunteering, community justice and the Big Society in relation to youth justice. Althoughsome participants did volunteer in their community, some raised practical concerns about thechallenge of volunteering with young offenders and people who were perceived as hard toreach. Other barriers to volunteering included time constraints, bureaucracy, CriminalRecords Bureau (CRB) check, insurance, liability and the feeling that professionals werebest placed to work with young offenders or children at risk. There was also doubt about thefeasibility of reviving a sense of community. There was some lively debate on the question ofwhether local communities today are so fragmented that there is little prospect of a renewalof community spirit. Some participants argued that people may yet be persuaded to worktogether to improve their communities.Although there was some scepticism about the political motives underlying the Big Society,generally participants felt that community justice was a good idea in theory. However, theywere unsure about its practical application. They felt that although members of thecommunity may be willing to support community justice, this would only work if there was astrong infrastructure to support such schemes.4

1. IntroductionThis report examines qualitative research into public attitudes to youth crime. The aim of thisresearch was to explore the public‟s views on youth crime and justice, restorative justice andcommunity approaches to tackling youth crime.MethodologyFocus group methodology was considered appropriate for researching attitudes to youthcrime. This is a complex topic that provokes diverse views that are often strongly held andexpressed, but can also be nuanced and ambivalent. These views can be closely scrutinisedduring focus group discussions, allowing participants to reflect upon the issues, challengeone another‟s views and, possibly, revise their opinions.However, there are limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from focus groupresearch as the findings are not derived from a representative sample of the general public.Focus groups also provide limited scope for exploring the impact of social and demographicvariables on public perceptions. They do not allow the views of specific individuals to betracked across different issues.Recruitment and composition of focus groupsFifteen focus groups were conducted, three in each of five neighbourhoods. The areas inwhich the groups were held were a mix of urban, suburban and semi-rural localities, andeach was in a different region of England.1 In each neighbourhood, the three groups werestructured by age and parental status as follows: 18 to 24 year-old non-parents; parents with at least one child in secondary school; and individuals aged over 25, at least 3 of whom were over 60, and none of whom hadany children living at home.2The groups also had selection criteria based on gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status,to ensure that they broadly reflected the local population. Participants were screened andrecruited by a market research agency in public places within the research sites. Individuals1The five regions were: London, East of England, West Midlands, North West, and Yorkshire &Humber.2This group included both parents (with adult children) and non-parents. For the sake of brevity, thisgroup will be referred to as the „older and non-parent group‟.5

who met the selection criteria were invited to attend the groups and offered an incentivepayment of 35. All focus groups took place in April and May 2011.Groups had seven to ten members (n 125 participants), of whom: n 57 were male; and n 68 were female; n 49 were aged 18 to 30; n 45, aged 30 to 49; and n 31 were 50 to 76; n 85 were White; n 22 Asian; n 15 Black; and n 3 Mixed ethnicity; n 79 were employed; n 17 students; n 13 unemployed; n 9 retired; and n 7housewives/carers.Structure of the discussions and reportParticipants were asked to complete a short questionnaire prior to the discussion. Thiscomprised questions about their backgrounds and attitudes. The aim of the questionnairewas to gain an insight into participants‟ initial views on youth crime and to gather basic sociodemographic data, please see Annex A.The discussions lasted around 80-90 minutes, were digitally recorded and fully transcribed.Focus group discussions were guided by a semi-structured interview schedule consisting offour main parts: To set the context for the discussions participants were first asked to describe whatthey perceived to be the main problems of youth crime and anti-social behaviour(ASB) in their neighbourhoods, the causes of these problems, and their impact. Secondly, participants were given a practical exercise. They were presented with fouryouth crime scenarios and asked to select an appropriate disposal for each from amenu of formal and informal options. They were also asked to give the reasons fortheir choice of disposal. The third and fourth parts were the group discussions focused specifically on theirviews on the different approaches to tackling youth crime: restorative and communityjustice respectively. The principles of restorative justice were explained andparticipants were asked if they thought that it was likely to be an effective means fortackling youth crime. Finally, participants were asked whether, and under whatcircumstances, community justice could be used to tackle youth crime, and anyperceived barriers to volunteering.This report discusses the focus group findings with respect to each of the four topics in turn.6

2. Local concernsParticipants were asked for their views on levels and types of youth crime and anti-socialbehaviour (ASB) in their local area. They were asked to consider: What the most significant problems were in relation to crime and ASB in their area? To what extent were local crime and ASB committed by young people? Why were some young people in their area involved in crime and ASB?Problems of youth crime and anti-social behaviourThere were two main issues that emerged from the initial debate: intimidating andsometimes abusive behaviour by groups of young people and vandalism, graffiti and othercriminal damage.Participants talked, often at length, about the disruptive and threatening presence of groupsof young people in their neighbourhoods. On occasion reference was made to „gangs‟ butmore often concerns were about informal groups „hanging about‟ the streets or parks. Theextent and nature of problems ascribed to these groups varied. However, participantspredominantly spoke about relatively minor nuisance behaviour, or behaviour that could bethreatening and abusive but did not tend to develop into outright violence.“Throwing beer bottles. Making balls out of something and lighting them and playing footiewith them, so they‟re kicking them all over the place, and they‟re on fire. Standing in the roadand dodging cars on purpose, stopping traffic and upsetting the drivers.”[Male participant, parent group]Some participants stressed that gatherings of young people can be intimidating simply bytheir very presence, regardless of intent to do harm. Part of the problem, a few suggested, isthat sensationalist media reporting of crime generates suspicion of young people.“The kids these days . they‟re only like 14 years old but they‟re as big as me, and they‟retaller, and they‟ve got hoods and stuff, and if I‟m walking down the road, I have to look twice,not for fear, but just to make myself feel satisfied, have I checked this group of people out,do they look suspicious? . And I look at them, and they‟re only little kids playing gameboysor whatever it is, and I‟m thinking: Why am I thinking this way? It‟s because of what I‟mhearing, and what I‟m seeing, and what surrounds me in the media and the news.”[Male participant, older and non-parent group]In nearly all the focus groups, participants said their neighbourhoods were affected byvandalism and other criminal damage committed by young people. They spoke of graffiti,7

damage to cars, and smashed windows. The corrosive impact on local communities wasmade clear.While criminal damage and intimidating behaviour by groups were the two problems mostfrequently mentioned by participants, a range of other local concerns also emerged.Participants referred to under-age drinking and drug use (generally cannabis where under18s were concerned) and their associated problems of crime and ASB. Thefts, muggings,fights and car crime were occasionally discussed. At the most serious end of the spectrumsome mentioned problems of knife crime.The focus group participants‟ concerns about local problems reflect the findings of otherresearch on attitudes to crime and ASB. In the most recent British Crime Survey (BCS), 25per cent and 21 per cent of respondents felt the teenagers hanging around on the street anddamage to property, respectively, were big problems in their local area (Chaplin et al., 2011).Impact of youth crime and anti-social behaviourParticipants‟ views on the impact of youth crime and disorder were evident from some of theabove discussion. Criminal damage was said to degrade the local environment andundermine efforts to improve it. ASB by groups of young people was said to make localpeople feel anxious and uncomfortable. During the discussions some participants spoke ofyouth crime and ASB causing disruption to their day-to-day lives.“A group can be intimidating; a loud group can be very intimidating. If you walk towards themthere‟s no give, they don‟t open up to let you pass to walk on the pavement, they just standthere, so you‟ve got to walk sideways, or nudge or bump, and that‟s the intimidating thing.And that was all right a couple of years ago, but now I‟ve got the stick to walk with, it‟s hardwork walking sideways; so it‟s not so much intimidating, they‟re just damn awkward.”[Male participant, parent group]Some of the strongest statements about fear of crime were voiced by participants talking oftheir fears for their teenage children, or of their teenage children‟s own fears.8

“I picked up my 18-year-old last night, he was out with his friends, and as we came homethere were four lads at half-twelve hanging out, and he went, „Oh thank God you picked meup, Mum, I wouldn‟t have known what I would have had to do if I walked past them.‟ .Automatically he thought something would have happened – that‟s how they think. It‟s reallyquite sad, isn‟t it?”[Female participant, parents group]Some participants spoke in more practical terms about the impact of youth crime on theirneighbourhoods. They complained that it can bring down house prices and increaseinsurance premiums in areas that develop a „bad name‟.The significance of relatively minor crimes and incidents of ASB for people‟s feelings aboutsafety and their local areas has been highlighted by other research (Innes and Fielding,2002 on signal crimes). These studies found that some crimes, which are not necessarilyserious, can have a disproportionate effect on an individual‟s and a community‟s sense ofsecurity.Causes of youth crime and anti-social behaviourMany of the participants argued that the failure of parents, schools and society to disciplinechildren is the primary cause of youth crime and ASB. Poor parenting was highlighted as akey issue in all focus group discussions. While sometimes participants‟ comments onparenting focused more broadly on the perceived failure of parents to care for and provideguidance and support for their children, lack of discipline was the main concern.“If you‟re brought up in a proper manner, to be honest, to be gentle, kind, thoughtful, youdon‟t finish up in court. It‟s their upbringing, it‟s what happens in their early part of life, howthey‟re treated when they‟re little, and some kids go through hell don‟t they? . They don‟tknow how to say please, they don‟t know what thank you is or please is, some of these kidsnowadays.”[Male participant, older and non-parent group.]Schools were also a focus of participants‟ complaints about discipline, and calls for corporalpunishment to be reinstated in schools were common. The support for corporal punishmentvoiced by many participants is reflected in the wider population. According to a recent surveycommissioned by the Times Educational Supplement, 49 per cent of parents favoured there-introduction of corporal punishment for very bad behaviour in schools (Stewart, 2011).9

“A lot of it‟s related to the discipline within school, and we seem to have lost that as well . Igot smacked at primary school . If I look at it now, I don‟t see where the punishment, I don‟tsee where the discipline comes in at school.”[Male participant, older and non-parent group]The pre-discussion questionnaire findings (see Annex A) indicate that most participants werenot particularly dissatisfied with how youth crime is tackled by the key statutory services.However, vehement criticisms of the criminal justice system were voiced in many focusgroup discussions. Consistent with the findings of other research in the area (Hough andRoberts, 2004), a sizeable minority of participants evidently regarded poor delivery andadministration of justice as part of the overall picture of poor discipline. Some felt thatchildren and young people no longer fear the police;3 the courts were said to do little morewith young offenders than give them a „slap on the wrist‟; and prisons were also criticised forbeing „too soft‟. Around two-thirds of respondents to the 2010/11 BCS survey felt that theway in which the police and courts dealt with young offenders was too lenient (Chaplin et al.,2011).Several participants referred more broadly to a breakdown

This report examines qualitative research into public attitudes to youth crime. The aim of this research was to explore the public‟s views on youth crime and justice, restorative justice and community approaches to tackling youth crime. Methodology Focus group methodology was considered appropriate for researching attitudes to youth crime.

Related Documents:

AQA A LEVEL SOCIOLOGY BOOK TWO Topic 1 Functionalist, strain and subcultural theories 1 Topic 2 Interactionism and labelling theory 11 Topic 3 Class, power and crime 20 Topic 4 Realist theories of crime 31 Topic 5 Gender, crime and justice 39 Topic 6 Ethnicity, crime and justice 50 Topic 7 Crime and the media 59 Topic 8 Globalisation, green crime, human rights & state crime 70

Crime Scene is the area where the original crime occurred. The Secondary Crime Scene comprises of the subsequent crime scenes. The Size of the crime scene can further be classified as Macroscopic and Microscopic. While Microscopic focuses on specific type of physical evidence at the crime scene, Macroscopic refers to one particular crime .

Index Crime Clock t City of McAllen 2018 14 Crime Facts at a Glance t City of McAllen 2018 15 CHAPTER TWO: UCR INDEX CRIME ANALYSIS 16 Index Crime Summary: Murder and Non -Negligent Manslaughter . 2016 135,667 138,659 141,716 144,841 148,034 2012 2013 2014. Crime Trends & Analysis: Crime Volume vs Crime Rate CRIME VOLUME

5 GENERAL POINTS: Crime is often categorised into: Crime against the person eg. murder, rape, assault. Crime against property eg. theft, vandalism. Crime against authority eg. riot, rebellion. Some crimes may be a combination of more than one of the above eg. mugging. The exact nature of crime has changed through time and reflects the attitudes and values of people in different periods of our .

§ Property crime rates have fallen to half the level of a quarter century ago. Crime in America: Two Sources of Data The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) both measure the level of violent crime nationally. However, each source uses a different methodology and provides a different story of crime in America.

Section 4 talks about the overall nature of crime, distinguishing "violent crime" as a group of crimes from other broad groups of crime, and discussing the contribution of violent crime to overall levels of reported crime, and the contribution of various types of violent offences to overall levels of violent crime. A number of related .

5. Crime-mapping is the process of producing a geographical representation of crime levels, crime types or the locations of particular incidents. The main crime mapping service in the UK is . www.police.uk, but various local initiatives and pilots are underway. Alongside the crime mapping service there is also

Adventure or Extreme Tourism To remote, exotic, sometimes hostile destinations; outside of comfort zones Agritourism Travel to dude ranches, country farms, country inns and rural bed & breakfasts. Gastro-tourism is linked Backpacking - Wilderness Hiking and camping in the backcountry Backpacking –Travel Low-cost, usually international , using public transportation, staying in hostels .