Chapter 1- Introduction
1.1 Background Information
The subject of anti-social behaviour has received a great deal of attention from politicians and within the media in recent years. Politicians to the left and the right of politics have called for tough action to be taken against perpetrators in order to reduce the level of nuisance they cause to society as a whole. Within academic criminology, however, it is argued that ASBOs have the effect of criminalising individuals, and fostering intolerance towards minor offences and could be used to label people who behave differently (e.g. mentally ill people) or who are deemed undesirable within an area due to their culture or behaviour (e.g. homosexuals or youths). (Fitzgibbon, 2004; Millie, 2009; Muncie, 2006; Squires, 2008).
This dissertation will argue that whilst these Orders were introduced for the purpose of improving the quality of life in civil society, the evidence available suggests that they do indeed succeed in criminalising individuals for engaging in behaviour which is not criminal. Because, although the behaviour itself is not a crime, breaching the conditions of their ASBO is a crime and, as we shall see, with over 40 per cent of individuals in breach of such Orders, it is clear that in the absence of ASBOs many individuals might never have come to the attention of the criminal justice system.
This chapter will focus on the basic aspects associated with the research topic. These are explored in this section to give the reader a brief overview of the dissertation and how this research will be carried out. The relevant keywords are discussed to provide a thorough guide to the research topic.
1.2 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
The Anti-Social Behaviour Order is a social order issued against an individual who has been discovered, through a lawful procedure, to be engaged in an Anti Social Behaviour (The Youth Affairs Council of South Australia, 2007). The Order, according to Youth affairs council Australia might prohibit definite behaviours, such as access to a particular area, worshipping with particular persons, or other behaviour considered as anti-social. ASBOs have been obtainable for application in England and Wales since 1999 and it is the UK model that has been projected for adoption in South Australia (Barry C., 1999).
The number of ASBOs issued in the UK was considered to be low; however since 2003 it has enlarged considerably when new law, The Crime and Disorder Act 2003, was introduced in the area.
In the UK, anti-social behaviour is distinct as whatever acts are likely to lead to crime, pestering or terror according to Maguire et al (2002). No doubt, such description is open to disconcertingly extensive and inconsistent understandings; it has resulted in behaviours such as playing football in the road, or being sarcastic to one’s neighbours being considered as anti-social. ASBOs have been implemented in conditions that restrain free speech and liberty of involvements.
As previously noted, whilst an ASBO is a social order, issued on the basis of non-criminal behaviour, violating an ASBO is a crime. Characteristically, an individual according to The Youth Affairs Council of South Australia (2007) will contravene an ASBO by continuing to engage in the similar non-criminal behaviour that earned them the ASBO in the first place. In this mode, ASBOs have the consequence of criminalizing behaviour that would otherwise not be against the law. As academics such as (Fitzgibbon, 2004; Millie, 2009; Muncie, 2007; Squires, 2008) etc. have differentiated it, ASBOs have the results of creating novel and tailor-made crimes for the persons to whom they are applied.
1.3 Do ASBOs decrease anti-social behaviour?
All the parties in UK have shown a great deal in antisocial behaviour in the last decade. Bright et al (2005) points out that the purpose of ASBOs is to decrease anti-social behaviour through the insertion of an order on a person or persons. Undoubtedly, in the most winning occasion this will not limit all anti-social behaviour but only that anti-social behaviour connected with the pertinent order. Data from the UK point out that more than four in ten ASBOs issued are violated. This forms a breakdown rate of almost 50% again just in relation to the anti-social behaviour connected with orders functional (Welsh, 2003). Rules such as ASBOs do not put off difficult behaviours, because they do not speak to the cause of the behaviour. In fact, the evidence suggests that in some cases ASBOs aggravate pre-existing troubles and generate new ones, with ASBOs sometimes being accepted as a “medal of honour” by certain groups and individuals (BBC News, 2006 [online]).
According to Goldson and Muncie (2006:70), evidence from the UK point outs that “ASBOs work to decrease anti-social behaviour only when they are functional in conjunction with prior interference programmes, support for behavioural alteration, education, programmes that counter to the reasons of the behaviour, and distraction programmes for young people”. This raises the obvious question: is it actually the ASBOs that are working?
1.4 Other implications risen from ASBOs
According to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ASBOs can be placed on anybody over the age of ten. Therefore, breaching the orders might result in a prison sentence of up to five years or, for those below 17 years of age, custody and training order of up to two years (Crime and Disorder Act 1998). This is a noteworthy episode out of the life of any young person. According to The Youth Affairs Council of South Australia (2007) data from the UK indicates that one in four people who have an ASBO placed upon them end up in jail. With more than four in ten ASBOs functional in the UK being contravened, this may not be a shocking outcome. This evidence supports the argument that ASBOs do lead to the criminalisation of individuals in society. We have a compulsion to think about what role ASBOs take to affect the life of an individual
1.5 Prostitution and ASBOs
Prostitution and kerb crawling results in irritation and anti-social behaviour and can direct road and inhabited areas into turn down. ASB Practitioners HO (2010) argue that sexual goings-on from street sex market can take place in vacant car parks, play grounds and private gardens, and kerb crawling is frequently a difficulty in these areas. Therefore, it has been noted that residential areas can experience annoyance and interruption when nearby houses are used for prostitution and drug dealing.
At some stage according ASB Practitioners HO (2010) in one-day the “total of anti-social behaviour carried out in September 2003 covering kerb crawling, soliciting, prostitutes’ cards in phone booth, surplus condoms and unsuitable sexual acts, 1,099 reports connected to prostitution were traced, signifying 274,750 reports per year”.
Anti-social behaviour takes place from prostitution, in specified street sex markets, can comprise loud and offensive arguments between prostitutes and their clients, and oral abuse of prostitutes and local people (Squires, 2008). Waste connected with prostitution can consist of used condoms, and, where drug dealing is there, unclean needles and other drug belongings. Kerb-crawling is increased by street prostitution and frequently slows down the stream of traffic resulting in irritation, annoyance and threats to people in the neighbourhood. Prostitute clients will often incorrectly centre their attention on other women passing by, and prostitutes will focus on men who are not potential customers.
In regions where prostitution occurs, people can experience fear going about their everyday business and will frequently have their sleep disturbed at night by traffic, sound and turmoil (Hooper, 2001). The annoyance has a degenerative consequence, making an area disagreeable and dangerous and deterring families and businesses from moving in. The crash on property values and insurance payments is noteworthy and the collective consequences of all these factors add to a spiral of turn down in the region.
Agencies according to ASB Practitioners (2010) require taking enforcement acts to defend groups of people from the annoyance connected with prostitution and drug dealing in inhabited areas. Therefore, enthusiastic action should be taken in opposition to kerb-crawlers.
Kerb crawling is a crime under s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1985 and s1 of the Supremacy of the Criminal Courts Act 2000 can ban kerb crawlers from driving as part of their verdict. Prostitutes watchfulness can be used or, where the annoyance is determined and severe, anti-social behaviour instructions (ASBOs). In regions facing noteworthy public irritation, civil ban under s222 of the Local Government Act 1972 can be used. Housing properties used for selling and using Class A drugs (such as heroin or cocaine) can be blocked by the law using closure powers under s1-11 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.
1.6 Minor disobediences
Over the past decade, young people have accounted for a bigger part of aggressive illegal actions than ever before (British Crime Survey, 2008). In reply to the increase in youthful misdeeds, the public has insisted that violent young lawbreakers are held responsible for their actions. To conciliate popular support for greater responsibility, lots of state governing bodies, such as the police, community safety teams and local authorities, endorsed Acts commanding larger chastisement on juveniles (Moore, 2001). This contemporary disciplinary move toward adolescent criminal behaviour, though, disagrees with their facilitative viewpoint in history underlying youthful fairness.
When state government first established adolescent courts at the close of the nineteenth century, the majority acts of criminal behaviour mixed up with relatively minor bad behaviour. Nowadays, kids of all ages hold weaponry to school and commit offence of fighting. The aggressive nature of modern adolescent criminal behaviour presents a future bigger danger to society (Randall, 2002). Furthermore, distinct customary acts of delinquency, such as severe violence results in noteworthy damage not only to the sufferers of aggression but also to the nearby society. This plays a role in raising the numbers of public in the illegal justice system and whether this is a suitable, effectual or reasonable answer to behaviour that may be anti-social but which is not illegal. According to Muncie (2007), evidence from the UK also points out the unbalanced application of ASBOs. Whilst Muncie notes that to date there has been no thorough assessment finished in the UK of the effects of ASBOs on dissimilar inhabitants or groups, there is noteworthy undeniable proof to put forward that young people and people from ethnically and linguistically miscellaneous backgrounds have been unreasonably impacted by ASBOs (Welsh, 2003). This supports the theory proposed by Young (1999) that the poor and ethnic minorities are disproportionately targeted by the police, and the argument of Pearson (1983) that it is the behaviour of the lower social classes that is the cause of most concern to the authorities.
Since the programme’s beginning, more than four in ten ASBOs have been applied to people below the age of 17. Research from the United States suggests that the most effectual method to shore up young people as they shift out of criminal behaviour is by redirecting them away from offense and the criminal justice system through interference and deterrence programmes. This is in line with the theory of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1997) which suggests that poor socialisation of young people leads them towards crime. Though, in the UK ASBOs also incorporate the alternative to name and shame, which consists of the person, who is subject to the ASBO having their photograph and information, posted on the Internet and spread to their society through leaflets and advertising material. This has taken place to persons as young as 10 years old. According to a study by the British Institute for Brain Wounded Children demonstrated that just about 35% of ASBOs have been applied to young people with an analyzed psychological illness or learning disability (Blyth, and Soloman, 2009). This would emerge to quite evidently show that many ASBOs are issued on the basis of behaviour that is a sign of a deeper, primary issue and that, in such cases, ASBOs are an unsuitable answer and leads to the criminalisation of such individuals.
1.7 What are additional worries related to ASBO?
In spite of what can be the severe consequences of having an ASBO, the balance of evidence necessary for an ASBO to be applied is not the same as that requisite for illegal offences. Rumour proof can be listening to support applications for ASBOs, with the consequence that 99 out of every 100 applications for ASBOs in the UK are approved (Hooper, 2001). Whilst ASBOs were firstly popular in the UK, this fame has been moving back as their impact has turned out to be apparent. ASBOs comprise a disciplinary reply to behaviour that is very frequently underpinned by other matters. Through their disciplinary nature, ASBOs manage as a system for not including those very people that we are working to re-connect with their societies.
1.8 Research Aims and Objectives
Aim of the research
The research aims to explore the concept of anti social behaviour orders and answer the research question, “By using ASBOs, are we criminalising our society”?
In order to attain the aims of the research, the researcher has formulated the research objective that considers whether using ASBOs for minor transgressions criminalises our society, in particular our youth, because even though the ASBO itself is a social order, violation of an ASBO is a crime.
This dissertation begins with the introduction chapter to give a brief of the research topic. This chapter consists of the basics relevant to the research topic. The anti social behaviour order is discussed in brief followed by the impact that it can have on the society. This is followed by the literature review chapter that describes the previously conducted researches in the same arena. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology used for this dissertation followed by the analysis. Finally, chapter 5 concludes the dissertation.
Chapter 2- Literature Review
2.1 Anti Social Behaviour factors
According to British Crime Survey in the year 1996, one in five adults were very bothered about being burglarized or mugged which points out that the Crime is high on the public list of concerns. These fears are equal to the fear of job loss, and feature in political surveys.
The figure of young lawbreakers aged 10-17, years those who were observed or found culpable in court has decreased from 1983-1994 by 50000. On the other hand, crimes, which are unreported, appear to be going up fast. The British Crime Survey assessed both reported and unreported offences, and as a result provides a self-determining way of measuring crime separately from police records. It works by a sequence of random discussions with people over 16. As per the British Crime Survey, stealing, robbery and physical attack went up by 73% between 1981 and 1995. These are crimes against individuals and amount to 19 million resentments or hurt a year. A parallel survey of sellers and producers in 1993 projected that there were an additional 9 million crimes. More serious offences are still very uncommon.
2.1.2 Young people
According to the British Crime SurveyTwo out of each five recognized criminals were below the age of 21 and a quarter were below 18 in the year 1994 and in the year 1993, 22,200 boys aged 10 to 13 and 78,000 boys aged 14 to 17 were found culpable or cautioned, evaluated with 7,700 girls aged 10 to 13 and 21,600 girls aged 14 to 17. As a ratio of the population, this is 1. 7% of all boys aged 10 to 13; 6.4% of boys aged 14 to 17; 0.62% of girls aged 10 to 13; and 1.9% of girls aged 14 to 17 (Great Britain, 2007). The most familiar crimes carried out by young people were robbery, taking cars and shoplifting.
An additional way of discovering how many young people were occupied is to ask them in secret interviews. It is frequently argued that the official records are only the tip of the iceberg. In one survey 67% of boys confessed at least one crime between age of 15 to 18 where as 39% confessed shoplifting between ages l0 to l4 (House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 2007). Minor against the law behaviour is very much a characteristic of teenage years, as is informal use of soft drugs for a few young people. The greater parts of teenagers grow out of criminal behaviour moderately rapidly.
Most young people grow out of crime. The greater parts of criminals are cautioned, which involves a lecture from a police official in the presence of a parent or other suitable adult. 80% of those who are watched do not come to police notice again. But it becomes less effectual once a prototype of aberrant sets in. What features which might show the way of a young person towards crime? All the studies, which has been conducted on why young people might commit crime points in a similar way (Hunter et al, 2007). It involves not operating normally or properly, families deprived of educational accomplishment at school, absenteeism, the unenthusiastic influence of peer groups, drug mistreatment, and a low possibility of getting an occupation. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1997) argued that we can recognize both from experience and investigation the features which make it probable that young people will become mixed up in offending.
2.1.4 Family Factors and Socialisation
According to Gil-Robles (2005), children brought up in families with negligent parental management and in poor neighbourhoods are at greatly elevated risk of crimes. It is contradictory parental discipline, where, for example, one parent states one thing and the other something else, which also generates troubles (see also Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1997). There is a lack of apparent limitations. These pressures are made distant not as much by hardship, and the uncertainty of being without a job, but also by poor physical conditions and low earnings. Yet children are gradually more facing scarcity (Gil-Robles A, 2005). The number of children living in residences with less than the standard national earnings in the UK has moved up from 16% to 33% between 1981 and 1992. Families, who are underprivileged, where neither parent has an employment, are particularly under pressure. Where parenting fractures down and there is unkindness, mistreatment, cruel or unpredictable obedience, children will be far more susceptible to cause offence. As young people deteriorate their binds with their families, they are again more probable to cause offence.
Investigation has discovered that children who reside in a single parent or step parent family are more at danger of offending than those who reside with both natural parents. This is not a straight effect of the family structure itself: there is a whole number of grounds why the management of children is more complicated in these situations (Campbell, S., 2002). The absence of one parent may make family relations more complicated.
2.2 Arrest case for loud sex
A case study in Israel conducted by Fyler (2010) comes under anti social behaviour orders. The case is related to a couple who were arrested for having loud sex in the night time. All the neighbours claimed for their anti- social behaviour to police. The case tells that people, who live in the area of Hankin Street within Holon, were disturbed in the midnight just by hearing loud sound that was coming from an apartment within their area. They called the police and then police officers went to the selected place. Then police officers accused and showed their aggressive behaviours to them. The lady, who was accused for her anti social behaviours, answered them angrily, though the police officers were annoyed. The officers slapped them and also charged the fine of about 100 dollars. The position escalated when the woman asked the female police officer whether she did not make these types of sounds at the time of having sexual intercourse.
The topic did not end there because lots of things took place that time. When the couple went downstairs after giving a fine, they were asked for giving their ID. But again they refused to give this and were hit and placed in a cruiser of police. The couple was put in the police custody and criminal record was filed as anti social behaviours to insult police officers. They were charged to be kept in jail for time of about six months. The couple stayed within police custody until the next afternoon.
The young woman said that she was hurt by police officer at the time of asking the lady whether she did not make any loud voice at the time of intercourse. Then she must have the power to hurt them greatly. She also told that this case was aggressive type because the lady keeps security linked place. It was unbelievable for the couple that they had not made any criminal record before and police made in just a moment. The police officer can come at the homes of citizens and can make any civilian from a normal person into the criminal. The police officer told that the couple mainly was jailed due to their questioning attitude just after shouting at officers who came at their designations because of disturbing sounds which was complained about by neighbours. And also the couple refused to provide their personal identify.
A somewhat similar story was discussed by BBC (2010) about the anti social behaviour by a woman named Caroline Cartwright. She had been caught for the fourth time after receiving warnings against her loud sounds during her night life with her husband. She used to play loud music and scream loudly during sexual activities. In spite of the complaints against her on a regular basis, she had not improved in her habits. The woman stated that she changed her sex hours from night time to early morning so as to minimize the disturbance but the noise is not in her control. She had been caught for 25th time and the court listened to her recorded sound of screaming and making loud noise during sex (The Telegraph, 2009). This demonstrates the anti social behaviour affecting lives of individuals in a negative manner for their sex behaviour.
(Please refer to appendix 4).
2.3 Anti-social behaviour
Many new measures were found which were innovative but also troublesome so as to curb the problems faced by various public media, criminal justice agencies. As per the Section One of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 a notion was developed that people who created a nuisance whereby their behaviour was considered as anti-social, for example a person started acting in an anti social way when the Act was commenced and his/her behaviour affects one or more person or if a person behaves in such a manner that it causes harassment to the other people in the society which in turn leads to other anti-social behaviour (Fitzgibbon, 2004).
Though if a person behaves in an anti social manner then it is a subjective matter and they are given labels to all those who are unwanted people as they behave in a bad manner with others because of their background or nature and do not follow any law and order. But as per the Carrabine and Lee (2009) sometimes it can be fruitful for the people who are weak and are not allowed to participate in various cultural or political events and also for all those who are less popular but there are chances that these people may get diverted in the wrong direction as they can become a victim of gossips, other bad activities such as prejudice, or prostitution.
Whether or not it may be good for such people, the risks associated with such practices can mislead a person and lead to further crime and criminalisation. For example, the labelling perspective suggests that once a label has been successfully applied to an individual it can lead to that individual taking on the label as their “master status” (Becker, 1967). They can begin to behave in ways that fit in with the label. The situation can spiral out of control when the parents of their friends and neighbours do not allow their children to associate with the delinquent child, so all that they have left is other youths who also have ASBOs. This can lead to them continuing the bad behaviour, breaching the ASBO and ending up with a criminal record.
According to Fitzgibbon (2004) the other concern with regard to the same Section One of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is the person who behaves “likely” and creates nuisance. Such people are then regarded as mentally unfit and the risk of encouraging anti-social behaviour increases so now it depends on the person whether they do want to do all those actions which can categorize them among criminals or as a likely criminal. However, whatever it may be the consequences in both categories are real and same the person is finally considered as a criminal offender.
The order regarding anti-social behaviour is effective only for two years at least which in turn can help in curbing such acts with the help of the courts or local authorities which is required so as to protect from anti-social acts. But if a person breaches the order then he/she is punished either by having to pay fine or be imprisoned for about 6 months (Vito et al., 2006). But this is not the only the matter of concern.
There are other sections which are concerned with the procedure of naming the potential risky people and also civil observation which deals with youth crime and disorder. So for this purpose various powers are given to people like a child should be under the restriction or control of child curfew schemes, parenting orders and power to eradicate the reason for such behaviour. All these powers are being provided to people so as to put an end on anti social behaviour which is unacceptable on the part of young people (Fitzgibbon, 2004). So for the same purpose a multi-professional Young Offender Team has come up so to encourage communication and observation of young people and their behaviour who fall under the category of Criminal Justice System? Not only this but new orders like Child Safety Orders u/s 11,12,13 have been designed so as to provide guidance and control the children under the age of ten years under the supervision of Young Offender Team so that they are diverted towards all those practices which in turn can harm others. So the Young Offender Team is finally responsible for their ill behaviour and this has been already legal under the law and orders for same has been issued by the Criminal Justice System. But somewhere or the other it has hampered the social freedom and it has been argued that curfew is wrong and a very biased act because it will affect the young people adversely as they will be considered as criminals at such a young age and will be treated indifferently.
Along with this another measure was developed regarding parenting of such children in order to keep an eye on their activities and find out if their children are often absent in school which can develop anti-social behaviour in them and for this purpose orders have been issued by the courts regarding parenting of such children. It restricts the parents to be supervised by a responsible officer of Young Offender Team for a week for continuous three months. Here the officer provides directions to the parents which are provided by the court and if they are not followed then those parents will be penalized with an amount of 1000 pounds (Walklate, 2007).
These orders have been developed out of a consultation paper Tackling Youth Crime in which it was emphasized that it is the responsibility of the parents for controlling the behaviour of their children and if they do not then they are punishable in the eyes of law. So therefore the parents are advised to be guided and trained which will enhance the control ability of parents over their children and will help in improving the lifestyle and avoid their children becoming criminals. Thus this order can further help in other sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which emphasizes that such orders can help in controlling the behaviour of the young at an early age which in turn will help in preventing violent or sexual harassment behaviour and secure remedies to tackle anti-social behaviour (Millie, 2009). Hence, any person found behaving in such a manner then such offenders are required to be registered in local police for thirty months or their entire life as the court imposes. These people are to be observed and monitored strictly as there are chances of repeating such behaviour. Not only this, but such people should also register themselves by experimentation. As this will help in developing a strong system with speedy exchange of information and dual approaches to manage the risk associated with such people.
The anti-social behaviour is defined by the Crime and Disorder Act that anti-social behaviour includes all those actions which cause harassment or distress to the people around (Matthews et al., 2007). But the British Crime Survey defines it as it consists of seven following actions like: abandoned cars, noisy neighbours, drunkenness among youth, nuisance, litter and vandalism and graffiti. Though the overall anti social behaviour is stable since past few years, 17% of people in 2008-09 saw a high level of disorder or anti-social behaviour which was very marginally higher than the previous year. This can be seen from the following table:
Source: Crime in England and Wales (2009)
So in order to curb the anti social behaviour a new type of order was introduced Anti Social Behaviour Orders. These are the orders which are available to the police and other local authorities since April 1999. These orders are granted for a minimum of two years, and are issued by courts.
In July 2009 figures were released by the Home Office regarding ASBO’s from April 1999 to December 2007 (Matthews et al., 2007):
From April 1999 to December 2007 approximately 14,972 ASBOS were introduced in England and Wales.
Ø In 2006 and 2005 there was decrease in ASBOS by 15% and 44% respectively.
Ø ASBOs were being used for various purposes all over the country. The rate of issue of such orders was seven times higher in greater Manchester than Dyfed-Powys, Lincolnshire or Wiltshire.
Ø Maximum of ASBOS were introduced to check men and their behaviour and out of all 14% were for women.
Ø Around 6028 in June 2000 ASBOs were against people under the age 18 out of which 44% were against people whose age was not known and 43% were on people under the age 18 years and 28% on women.
Ø For adult ASBOs 53% of cases were issued for two to three years as compared to 68% of the people under the age of 18 years.
Ø From June 2000 to December 2007 around 7981 people had breached the ASBOs for the first time which showed a br
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: