Juvenile crime - State must invest in early intervention

IT might appear to be stating the obvious to say that the prevention of juvenile delinquency is an essential part of tackling crime in society.

Yet, though it is the very first fundamental principle of the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, it is the least observed precept in this country.

Youth crime and how our justice system deals with it, as well as the various agencies concerned with our youth, are examined in depth by this newspaper over the course of the next four days.

Unfortunately, too many young people are destined for a life of crime from an early age, when they might have been diverted from that pursuit by the proper intervention of the relevant State agencies.

It is in their interests, and those of society as a whole, that practical solutions be found so that they do not graduate from the Children’s Court to the harsher penal institutions from where they will eventually emerge as habitual and hardened criminals.

It seems that this will necessitate a fundamental mind change to bring this about, yet what is needed is an underlying belief in the principle that prevention is better than cure.

From a narrow societal point of view, prevention is economically better even if it were affected on a small scale. This has been the British experience where it was shown that early intervention for only one-in-10 offenders realised annual savings the equivalent of €148 million.

In spite of the fact that there is a profusion of legislation and measures both on the books and to be introduced, as well as institutions, to deter any young person from offending, the reverse is true.

Society leaves to the gardaí and the courts the ultimate intervention, when, in many cases it is too late, and incarceration in some institution with its punitive overtones, is too often the solution.

The Irish Association for the Study of Delinquency (IASD) last year investigated the case histories of 50 young people who came before the Children’s Court. Although the Children Act 2001 stipulates that detention be seen as a last resort for those under 18, the study noted that half of those convicted were sentenced to detention.

It also found some were as young as 12 and that almost one-quarter appeared on public order offences.

Yet, the Government proposal to introduce Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), has been criticised by the Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan, on the basis that breaking an order can have a child end up with a criminal record.

While Tánaiste Mary Harney and Minister for Children Brian Lenihan both supported the introduction of ASBOs, Ms Harney described it as a last resort.

It reflects the debate surrounding measures only aimed at controlling children. That debate ignores the fact that by investing in proper infrastructure for the community, such as proper leisure time facilities for young people, they might never appear on the radar.

It makes complete sense to invest in early intervention, rather than having to spend money at a juncture where its objective is to contain rather than to prevent.