The Scottish Government

Page: [1] ...[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

SECOND RESPONSE TO CHILDREN IN FOCUS: THE COHORT STUDY

PROFESSOR KENNETH NORRIE, PROFESSOR OF FAMILY LAW, STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY, AND A MEMBER OF GLASGOW SOUTH EAST'S CHILDREN'S PANEL

IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS

• the need for early intervention
• the system promises more than it delivers
• ethnic issues are crying out for further in-depth study.

THREE STRUCTURAL ISSUES

• contrary to the policy of most legal systems, we have held on to our idea that protection/neglect cases should be dealt with in the same way as offender cases. The research gives strong credence to our thinking here. The children come from similar backgrounds, have similar problems and deprivations. Their similarities far outweigh their differences
• we must look again at the 16-18 year old age group. The system has little to offer them and both reporters and panel members have a strong feeling that they have outgrown the system. Perhaps this is as it should be. The system is designed to deal with children, and few of us really believe that it is right to treat a 16 or 17 year old as a child. Young offenders need to take responsibility for their own actions. When they are children we believe that they are not fully responsible. By the time they are 16, then probably they are
• outcomes for offenders in terms of diverting them from offending behaviour is poor. But why are we surprised. We know that any legal system's procedural response to offending has almost no effect on levels of offending. But that, surely, is not the point of the children's Hearings system. It is, rather, to treat young offenders more appropriately during the process. It is to treat them as individuals with a sense of self-worth, rather than to dehumanise them as the adult criminal court system quite deliberately sets out to do. That, surely, was the point of this week's Bulger decision.

Page: [1] ...[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]