It was said that young people shouldn’t mix with adults, this idea was brought in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It was obvious that a juvenile justice system had to exist, but how it was going to exist was the issue (Crawford and Newburn, 2003).
The home office took control of the individual schools in the 1860’s and then the early 1900’s seen the form of the borstals, this catered for the ages of 16-21. There was no real structure at this time and before formal legislation was passed, there was arrangements for supervision of the offenders to take place …show more content…
The state of the legal system in youth crime has been evidentially stagnant over the past two decades, the punitive turn is evidence that reduced tolerance for young people in conflict with law. Because of this it led to harsher outcomes and the number of young people in custody soared (see: Pitts, 2001; Goldson, 2002; Muncie, 2009).
A lot of time was spent on how to reform these youngsters, and the main problem was about their welfare. When, The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 was reaffirmed, the principles of the juvenile justice system became apparent (Crawford and Newburn, 2003). It gave a clear assumption, of how it would work to promote the welfare of the children. The juvenile justice system was taken over by ‘Welfarism’ and this lasted a further 40 years (Crawford and Newburn, 2003).
There were arguments about the Criminal Justice Act 1948, as to the age of offenders. The Ingleby committee established in 1956, inquired into the juvenile court and the development of the local authority based systems were favoured(Crawford and Newburn, …show more content…
143) said that a normal child isn’t worth reporting but when a child who is seen to have beyond devilish ways appears, they are there to report it, this gives the public a sense of panic and a feeling of being uneasy with the youths within society. The negative pictures and articles causes a huge propaganda. This came at a time of ‘Folk Devilling’ with young people who were breaking the law. In 1993 and the revelation of the James Bulger case, it acted as a catalyst which reinforced what the public were worried about, that being that childhood was in crisis. There was a concern that every young person was now “out of control” (Goldson, 2002; Muncie,