The Government’s Respect Agenda

The regimens Respect AgendaThe current coiffeThe honour schedule emerged as a broad idea during the 2005 ecumenical election campaign. Tony Blair coined it as existence aboutputting the law-a proffering majority back in charge of their local communities.how we bring back a proper sense of respect in our schools, in our communities, in our t gives and in our villages.1A culmination of what has now been deemed as being anti fond behavior much(prenominal) as binge drinking, an amplify in whoredom and vandalism as well as a rapid increase in low-level crime, the respect order of business was aimed at fraternity spirit. substitute the proposals with an increase in constabulary and local authority power to bring off with families who blight communities with unacceptable doings emphasised one of its pay off principles as the importance of rebalancing the whitlow justice organization to benefit victimsSupporters of the aim keep claimed that it foc troths on low-level agg ravation and so enables the community to maintain the traditional neighbourhood watchdog element that has almost disappe atomic number 18d from the streets of Britain. Complementing the respect agenda ar early(a) proposals such as a Face the People project where community meetings will be held to aloneow residents to hold officials exponible for community synthetic rubber issues and to voice their names on community matters.The idea of respect within the anti-social behaviour agenda has alike meant that the net has been able to be cast simpler with further goals including the creation of a task force to clamp down on school discipline. Teachers and schools will be able to apply for p argonnting orders where a infants behaviour requires it and local g everyplacenance being able to do designate housing or community safety officers to do the aforementioned(prenominal).2Criticisms and legislative proposalsAs a whole the scheme has received animadversion for, at best, bein g vague and at worst for being a knavish PR slogan with nothing behind it.3 Opposing the scheme nigh consider express that it will not work un slight the amount of police officers patrolling the streets increases in order to enforce the schemes proposals.Procedurally, Anti- tender behavior Orders and football Banning Orders consume been criticised as being atomic number 18 two key examples of Hybrid Law, oblige as a response to condemnable conduct, allowed by flagitious law sanctions, but operating infra a genteel law procedure providing fewer protections for defendants. These hybrid orders have the power to severely restrict the freedom of respective(prenominal)s, who have not been effect guilty of any criminal offence. 4Encouraging its enjoyment and claiming that local regimen do not intention them sufficiently frequently5 the ASBO was introduced by s 1 of the detestation and Disorder travel, 1998, generated heated debate at its inception and this escalate sinc e its subsequent development.6 Criticisms have also been levelled by a wide miscellany of organisations, but particularly by those overwhelmd with children, c at a timerned over the increase powers schools will have in obtaining p arenting orders as well as expressing concern over the way the homeless will now be treated. The Government has not precisely sought to rebut these criticisms, but has encouraged and facilitated the use of anti-social behaviour measures, as an active part of the respect agenda.Will the agenda perplex a difference?Contrary to this, huge support has been comprehend as the matters involved in the respect agenda mean that province of penalising the culprits is at a community level rather than at an institutional one at the courts. This would ease the workload on the courts and also make way for much serious crimes rather than seeing that the low-level offences make their way through the criminal justice scheme swiftly. As the sand of the proposal is a reform in granting reliable powers and with that is the advancement of the use of the notorious ASBO. plainly with the intension of serving more ASBOs means that more of them are likely to be prisonbreaked with statistics showing that currently one in four ASBOs are breached.7. This has meant that those who work in the criminal justice system have their doubts as to the performance of the scheme saying that jailing pot just for breaching an ASBO seems extreme, especially if the reasons for the breach have not, in themselves, been addressed such as a drug, alcohol addiction or prostitution.8Although thither has been speculation as to whether the attempted control of behaviour through the use of ASBOs is still heatedly debated a just indication of the working of such a scheme crowd out be noted in societys ever-changing attitude toward anti-social behaviour as a whole. Drink driving was once common place but is now regarded as unacceptable by most good deal. This change in o utlook finish be said to get out back to the massive humankindity campaign coupled with sanctions.9But once again evidence serves to the contrary using the examples of the increased use of cannabis as well as the increase in sexually transmitted diseases. Which both(prenominal), despite coherent-standing advertising campaigns, have become increasingly widespread, with the likes of certain STIs on the increase and increased cannabis use saw the administration reclassify cannabis to make its use and possession a less serious offence.The Human Rights issueSome writers, especially lawyers, have voiceless on the procedural aspects of on the main elements of the proposals and the manner in which uncontrollable behaviour will be dealt with via the use of ASBOs, criticising by considering whether the government schema is consistent with its own human rights legislation.10Most controversially, the scheme has also proposed to go beyond the ambit of crime and is offering what has be en coined as a omit and seal power. A new house closure order which would lead to people deemed guilty of causing serious nuisance to others being excluded from their own homes for three months, even if they own the properties. nicety,11 has expressed its concerns over the manner in which an ASBOs whitethorn be obtained and how procedural issues in dong so are likely to encroached on human rights. Using the case of McCann12 where the House of Lords accredited that proceedings to obtain an ASBO in accordance with section 1 of the Crime and Disorders Act, 1998 the classification of ASBO proceedings as being civil would mean that rumour evidence would be used in all cases, even where there is no indication of witness intimidation. Expressing its understating of the Governments penury was a perception that victims of anti-social behaviour have in the past been likewise fearful to come forward and give evidence. But still increase concern over its unnecessary restriction the righ t to a clear trial adding to their argument that this is particularly so, now that the guilty Justice Act, 2003 has relaxed the rumour sway to allow courts to accept such evidence in respective(prenominal) cases where there is a demonstrated problem of witness fear or intimidation.Jeopardising civil liberties law of nature powers, under the agenda, have meant that greater powers have been disposed(p) to them concerning the dispersal of groups, even when there has been no poorly behaviour. This unnecessary restriction on civil liberties will potentially result in a loss of respect for the police, and the law generally, amongst the groups singled out for attention (including blanket curfew imposed on people less than 16 years of age).This should be narrowed, in that only those groups where there is evidence of actual anti-social behaviour should there accordingly be power for the police to order that people leave the area. So if the police view that a certain area is especiall y alter then they can award themselves extra powers to deal with that location in particular. Not only are these extra powers likely to create unsupported discrimination against certain groups in society but will also confuse the police as to their powers and the public as to their rights.Further criticism of the use of the ASBO in anticipateing anti-social behaviour is that they contain prohibitions that are too wide in scope and infringe the rights of the recipient, making breach of orders very likely.13 set up power Knowing whats best?With regards to parenting orders and increased powers allocated to school when transaction with vicious pupills, literature has critisisied this for removing young peoples right to automotny.14 insofar at a time when the government is emphasising parents duty to produce good moral citizens, a degree of confusion about the limits of parents power is possibly perceiveable. Conflicting social norms prevent parents from controlling their childre ns lives, while at the same time requiring them to take responsibility for their childrens moral education and to be accountable for their childrens actions and decisions. Parents may well wonder at societys expectations of them in seeking to rein the balance.15Impact of the interest group and supporting organisationsDefining anti-social behaviourThe convey of the term anti social behaviour is wide and so disputable in its interpretation. As different people associate different behaviour as constituted anti-social behaviour there are certain groups at more risk than others to be unjustly swept into its categorisation. So, the wide definition of anti-social behaviour has the potential to discriminate against those from ethnic minority populations, travellers and those who simply submit an alternative lifestyle. Another main concern is that the older members of society who believe that young people are predominately anti-social means that community ties may be jeopardised as well as community relations. The risk of unnecessary over policing of young people and perhaps the unnecessary criminalisation of (what to some may be perceived as being anti-social) activities may also be prejudicial to young peoples perception of the police and be detrimental to future associations between the two groups. With the majority of ASBO applications being make against mortals under the age of 2116 is seems that the creation of this tension would be extremely likely.How long is the punishment?JUSTICE has expressed concern over the duration of which an ASBO can be granted. ASBOs can be served against children as young as 10. The only criteria that the magistrate must use in deciding to impose the order is that the individual has behaved in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, timidity or distress. Breaching the conditions of an ASBO is a criminal offence, punishable by up to fin years in prison. This means that individuals are being sent to prison for committing acts which are not in themselves illegal.As has already been discussed the conditions impose through an ASBO may be wide so warranting a likelihood of breach just the punishment may not necessarily constitute the level of the breach committed.An ASBO may only be imposed for the minimum of two years, and an application to discharge an ASBO lasting more than this duration may only be made after the first two years of it have passed. The granting of an ASBO is think to prevent future anti-social behaviour. But a two year dot in a young person or adolescents life is a long arrest of time, in which as a teenager much can change.17 JUSTICE argues that a duration as long as this is unnecessary and in part may be detrimental in the development of children into adults. Curbing what some would see as anti-social behaviour which may have only lasted a short period of time if allowed to run its course may now be draw out over a longer period of time as part of the young person rebellion. The example given by JUSTICE is that if a young person of 15 is given an ASBO including the ban on entering a town centre, 18 months on, the now mature 17 year old may miss out on offers of employment if still unable to entering the town centre.18Controversially, it has been suggested that this matter will hit children much younger than those suggested by JUSTICE in that the respect agenda is leading to a generation of children being demonised because too many are being given anti-social behaviour orders. Prof Rod Morgan, the chairman of the youth Justice Board, says some children as young as 10 are being labelled with the mark of Cain on their foreheads because of a misplaced cult over teenage crime.19The wide spread of restrictions such as ASBOS in an attempt to clamp down on anti-social behaviour means that perfectly lawful activities can become criminalised through the use of an ASBO, such as children playing on the street. The fact that anti social behaviour must cause or be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress should be better defined and narrowed to incorporate an mark element and a need for actual harassment.20Ignoring the root of the problemWhilst the civil liberties organisation conversance21 is concerned that children and vulnerable people who need help and support are being served with ASBOs fearing that this will create greater problems for those individuals and their roles in society. Liberty argues that if individuals are committing crimes of intimidation or harassment, then the criminal law should be used to tackle their behaviour.ConcludingA suggestion for the way in which anti social behaviour may be prevented by non criminal justice means has been initiated in the respect agenda. The agenda proposes to rekindle a sense of solidarity in the community building bridges between neighbours and creating community relations. Due to this there is great scope for the use of alternative affray resolution techniques, neighbou rhood mediation and restorative justice responses. This would directly involve the communities that may have once been, or are risk of being affected by anti-social behaviour be it by young people or not. These methods would also avoid the need for a corrective criminal justice response. It would also aid in preventing the behaviour before it escalates resolution the problem rather than punishing people or removing them from their homes.At hold the ASBO does not appear to be working as an efficient tool in the fight against anti-social behaviour. Be this because the restrictive conditions of ASBOs are frequently breached, and this can lead too easily to the further criminalisation of children and young people and (in many cases) to incarceration22 or the more controversial fact that the frequency to which ASBOs are granted the stigma behind them has disappeared, with many young people penalised by one considering it to be a badge of their disorderly behaviour. At a national level , criticisms relating to the lack of fairness in the use of ASBOs need to be addressed and urgently if the ASBO is to retain any weight in society.23Charities have suggested that more funds should be granted to voluntary organisations and youth groups in order for young people to channel their abilities into prolific activities.24 A blotto argument for this suggestion is that youth groups, activity organisations and extra-curricular centres where children and young people could discover on a voluntary basis be created. The organisations could work tump over in hand with schools and maintain feedback as to the progression of the young persons development, enabling the young person to be proactive and productive and so prevent anti-social behaviour in the long term and boredom (which may result in this) in the short term. This would also prevent the need for schools to initiate the need for parenting orders if they felt that a childs behaviour was likely to benefit from these typ es of activities.Obviously, statistics are not needed to understand that anti-social behaviour and low-level crime are affecting communities at both ends of the UK and rapidly seems to have become a mounting problem. But this combine with the fact that parenting skills are being blamed and children and young people are having their freedom of association as well as their civil liberties encroached upon is all but likely to break down community ties and encourage bad behaviour further. But by creating a parallel civil system of justice where the definition of anti-social behaviour is extremely broad means that non-criminal activity, is in effect, being made criminal by the imposition of an order as a result of non-criminal proceedings. In a country that respects the rule of law is it necessary for an order to cater for the crimination of behaviour?25 What is obvious is that the ASBO appears to be a bandage over a gaping wound. The matters behind the granting of an ASBO and other r emedial proposals set out in the respect agenda such as lack of parenting skills and discipline, teenage binge drinking, drug and alcohol addiction, unruly pupils and lack of adequate discipline in schools and prostitution are not even marginally being addressed. Aggravating this with an increase in powers for authorities such as councils, schools and police and lack of community ties and neighbourhood schemes those who are in need of help are more likely to be punished before the true problem is addressed.Reference listBright, S. legal ouster for Anti-Social Behaviour. 2006. Conv. 2006, JAN/FEB, 85-91Burney, E. Talking Tough, Acting Coy What Happened to the Anti-Social Behaviour Order? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 41,Number 5, December 2002, pp. 469-484(16)Collins, D.M. Tenant Liability for Nuisance Children. J. P. L. 2007, May, 669 674Guthrie, T. Anti Social Behaviour Legislation. 2006. S.L.T. 2006, 16, 103Hall, A. Childrens Rights, Parents Wishes and the State Med ical handling of Children. Fam Law 36 (317) 2006Hopkins Burke, R Morrill, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders an Infringement of the Human Rights Act 1998? R. (2002) 11 Nottingham L.J.Koffman, L. The Use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders An Empirical field of study of a impudently Deal for Communities Area. 2006. Crim. L.R. 2006, JUL, 593-613Matthews, R. Policing Prostitution Ten Years on. November 2005. 45 Brit. J. Criminology 877Robins, J. Focus Police Serve and Protect. (2006) LS Gaz, 9 Mar, 20Robson, G. Community Justice Centres Part 1 A Political Agenda with Possibilities? (2006) 170 JPN 584 5 August 2006Thomas, D.A. Sentencing Anti-Social behaviour orders on conviction. 2006. Crim. L.R. 2006, JUN, 569-572Case Comment Anti-Social Behaviour. Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen 2006 EWCA Civ 539 2006 H.L.R. 43 (CA (Civ Div)) L. T. look backward 2006, 10(4), D61-621 http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597378.stm (Wednesday, 11 January 2006, 0853 GMT)2 Op cit3 I volunteer 14 R. Hopkins Burke a nd R. Morrill, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders an Infringement of the Human Rights Act 1998? (2002) 11 Nottingham L.J.5 Burney, E. Talking Tough, Acting Coy What Happened to the Anti-Social Behaviour Order?6 Hopkins Burke, R Morrill, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders an Infringement of the Human Rights Act 1998?7 Koffman, L. The Use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders An Empirical learn of a New Deal for Communities Area8 http//business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/public/article697842.ece9 I ring 110 I bid 611 As per report via http//www.justice.org.uk/12 R. (on the application of McCann v Manchester Crown Court. 2002 UKHL 3913 I bid 614 Hall, A. Childrens Rights, Parents Wishes and the State Medical sermon of Children.15 Op cit16 As per statistics included in Koffman, L. The Use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders An Empirical Study of a New Deal for Communities Area as sourced from S. Campbell, A Review of Anti-social Behaviour Orders, Home Office Research Study 236 (Home Office, 2002) , at p.8.17 As per Memorandum submitted by JUSTICE http//www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80ii/80we24.htm18 Op cit at para 1019 Daily Telegraph, 24 April 2006,20 I bid 17 at para 1621 http//www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/22 In accordance with the proposals set out by the respect agenda referring to the campaigns use of refer to this campaigns use of simple, populist language, justifying tough enforcement.23 I bid 724 I bid 2025 I bid 17 at para 19