Offending Youth…….
London Police Chief Ghaffur talks from his heart
Tarique Ghaffur
Youth offending in London is showing worrying trends. Analysis shows steady and sustained rises in street crime in recent years and that juveniles commit up to three-quarters of this crime. Estimates show that thousands of people under the age of eighteen across London may involved in all types of crime and as a result high profile responses are underway by the police and other agencies such as the ‘Safer Streets’ Street Crime Initiative, led personally by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens, Prime Minister and Home Secretary. ‘Cracking-down’ on street crime by way of targeting prolific offenders, refusing them bail, fast-tracking them into court, sentencing them to increased periods in young offender institutions, tagging, and so on, are all necessary short term measures to provide reassurance to the general public that London’s streets are safe. Some evidence is emerging that these sorts of tactics are having an impact and that by focusing resources upon the short-term problems we can alleviate them. So far so good, but what about the medium and longer term? In examining this issue we need to be careful to rely upon analysis of all the factors that contribute to the causes of crime. These are now relatively well known but are difficult to tackle. There are no easy answers.
For instance, in the peak offending times for street crime in London are often later afternoons and early evenings, as children leave school for home. Of those arrested for such crimes, as many as three quarters are first time entrants to the criminal justice system which is of concern as it demonstrates that whilst previous generations usually progressed into criminality via relatively low level crime - the stealing apples or sweets of yesteryear - today’s youth are entering criminality at a far higher level of seriousness such as street robbery. The ‘apples’ of yesteryear were stolen by stealth from orchards or sweets from `tuck shops’ and were tolerated, without custodial sentences, as part of growing up. Today, mobile phones have replaced apples and are obtained by robbery on the streets of Britain, offences rightly punishable, under some circumstances, by punitive custodial sentence for first time offenders as a deterrent to others. In consequence, a generation of youth are now exposed to young offender penal institutions, far earlier than they ever were, and when released are likely to re-offend no matter how good or rigorous the regime of the institution is. Research shows that most of these youngsters involved in this sort of criminal career progression are from black and other minority communities and this has implications for the long-term harmony of race relations in the UK.
Research arising from recent cases also shows that the dynamics of our urban communities has given rise to newer underlying causes of crime amongst the young. For instance, that a pattern of victimization of very young children exists who themselves eventually become perpetrators of crime and eventually progress into gang based criminality and culture. Most such crime goes unreported, except to teachers and social workers, many of whom until recently, did not believe it is part of their role to break confidentiality and report such matters to police. In some black communities in London where ‘black on black’ drug related shootings are prevalent evidence is also emerging that socially excluded youngsters are powerfully influenced by negative role models, usually associated with drug dealing. These children are drawn into drug dealing rings,
Performing small tasks to start, but gravitating to more serious criminality. These children are not necessarily victims of crime themselves. This spiral of crime and social disintegration feeds into the intimidation of witnesses and the reluctance to talk to and support the police, and there is evidence of a patent lack of confidence in the wider criminal justice process to protect these increasingly vulnerable communities. This is a pessimistic long-term scenario, which also requires vigorous action and leadership at every level of our society. But what is to be done?
The starting point may be a re-appraisal of the policy advice that has flowed from criminology over the past twenty years that has arguably ‘failed’. These policy agendas over the past twenty years have emphasized the role of the professionals in the system form varying perspectives. Some argue for strong law enforcement by police, some argue that offending behaviour should be left to the courts, and others argue that offenders are more sinned against than sinning and the professionals must stop stigmatising and labelling youngsters as deviants. There is no doubt that all these theories have their merits and can and should be integrated into any youth crime prevention plans, but where these arguments have failed, is in their agreement that community activism has no place in crime control. Effectively, the professionals in the criminal justice system and social services over the past twenty years have been telling communities to mind their own business, and to leave crime to the professionals to sort out. Current thinking suggests this approach has been wrong-headed and that crime is best controlled when the communities are the primary agents through active participation in shaming and re-integrating offenders into the community.
This powerful argument has led to the emergence of restorative justice policies, which are now being used in the UK and showing interesting possibilities of restoring the balance between community involvement and the professionals in the criminal justice system. But what does all this theorizing mean in practice for our current problems in London and for the future?
It means, that whilst we can continue to crack down on young offenders, most of whom are black and first time offenders, if we are simply content to rely upon the criminal justice system, most of it run by middle class professionals, with little understanding of the issues within the ethnic minority communities giving rise to this offending behaviour, we run the high risk of stigmatising a whole generation of youth, most it from black and other ethnic minority communities, thus storing up enormous problems for the future. Whilst short-term measures are necessary and justified, we ignore at our peril the longer-term issues. We must instead, as part of a longer term approach begin to re-assert the requirement of communities themselves to take responsibility for their young, working with the professionals to ensure fairness and proper accountability, and thus tackling some of the causes of crime in partnership with those who have a vested interest in the outcome. But who is providing the leadership for this to happen?
The onus of responsibility must fall in the first instance with government and the professionals within the criminal justice system and other public services. For too long, the causes of crime, which are relatively well known, such as poverty and deprivation,
Have led to ghettoisation in London and other major cities. In London ghettoisation is now giving rise to a clash of sub-cultures between diverse minority communities, drug and alcohol abuse is rife, family breakdown common, educational under-achievement is a feature, and migration by youngsters into the hidden economy of crime around drugs almost a natural progression and a constant nightmare to parents who are feeling vulnerable and powerless as many young people become offenders and victims. All this is exacerbated by the placement of asylum seekers and new immigrants (through no fault of their own) into a society that is already failing to cope with existing social problems. When all this is put together we can see the potential emergence of an underclass and thus for the harmonization of race and community relations. We have seen evidence of some of this in our northern cities in recent times.
But the responsibility for redressing this balance in our society cannot lie solely with government and the professionals within the agencies whose recent efforts are to be applauded. The minority communities in London, and elsewhere, must now accept more responsibility for the development of their own communities and the trends in youth offending and social disintegration of all kinds. To their credit, this is beginning to happen in some areas with evidence of some brave and high profile leadership by many minority community leaders that starts with an acceptance of the social problems within their own communities some of them with cultural overtones. This is especially true in the black and Asian communities where there is a growing realization that youth in these communities have their own cultural issues to deal with when it comes to crime and that their own community values, cultures and informal structures can play a part in preventing youngsters entering crime and help re-integrate young offenders into the community when they have transgressed.
But minority leaders that are anxious to lead this debate cannot do it alone. They need help from government and others. As a way forward, there needs to be a continuance of the public debate about such issues about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in the UK. This debate needs to include the cultural characteristics of the majority community, predominately white, and a discussion as to why a ‘yob culture’ is a characteristic of UK street culture. Many ethnic minorities, first and second generation, see this sort of behaviour in evidence in the cities and on the streets of Britain, and are naturally reluctant to integrate their own children values in to such an urban culture. It is time for an open debate about crime and the causes of crime and this includes the impact of immigration, asylum seekers, and the integration of ethnic minority communities. That public debate was started by the Home Secretary in the aftermath of the events of September the 11th, and it continues through the equally tragic events surrounding the Damilola Taylor case.
But let’s not pretend, that the ‘youth crime problem’ in the UK is solely a problem for visible ethnic minority communities. Ethnic minority communities are just as concerned as the host community to see a sensible and considered debate about the causes of crime, including the impact of immigration and asylum policy. The vast majority of black, Asian and other visible minority communities want their children to
achieve, and to prosper and to have a secure future within a stable British society. In deed, these groups have a vested interest in such a crime free and harmonized society because current trends, as reflected in Oldham and elsewhere in Europe, give a feeling of vulnerability about a social backlash that will target minority communities. There is another reason because minority communities suffer most as victims and suffer again because their children are stigmatised as criminals.
To achieve this state of public reassurance about crime and harmony in long-term race relations their needs to be a series of confidence building measures between the host communities, professional agencies and minority communities. To be fair, this process has started within the institutions.
The Lawrence Report has been attacked for introducing the concept of institutionalised racism, and this finding has now been extended to the Crown Prosecution Service and by inference the courts systems by no less a person than the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is a painful debate for the professionals in such institutions, but it is being embraced, slowly, and in some cases reluctantly. But the ethnic minorities can take some measure of reassurance, even if they believe change is too slow.
It takes a long time to turn the culture of such institutions around and for them to embrace diversity, but it will happen in the fullness of time, perhaps over the next generation. But there is a quid pro quo in this historical and evolutionary process and that is recognition by ethnic minority communities, that crime within their own communities is their problem and they must lead in sorting it out, and on such issues as integration into the mainstream British way of life. The Police, Criminal Justice system and other Agencies in London need community support as they struggle to cope with rising demands and expectations. The law abiding members of the minority community must empower themselves to promote good citizenship and learning amongst new comers of acceptable norms of behaviour. There must be active participation at all levels of employment within the public services in London.
An effective and sustained approach to crime reduction has to include, therefore, action for the medium and long term and not just today’s problem and be the subject of sustained investment by government in these isolated communities.
We can lock up persistent young offenders, and we should where it is appropriate. But these youngsters come back into society at some stage, many to re-offend, and whilst they are off the streets, the dynamics of crime described in this article are producing a never ending supply of young offenders to take their places on the streets of London. Far better to prevent these kids coming into the criminal justice system in the first place. The Metropolitan Police is actively seeking to address these issues, in partnership with our fellow professionals, but we ignore the communities and their leaders at our peril for the long term. They need our help and support and we need theirs.
The writer
Tarique Ghaffur is the Assistant Commissioner for metropolitan Police in London. A very pleasant and down to earth young man. Ghaffur is an enormously capable man who speaks with conviction and determination.
He is responsible for Policy
Review and Standards. This includes the
Directorate of Quality
Performance and Review, the Directorate of Legal Services and the
Operational Policy Support Unit. It also includes the Directorate of
Professional Standards, which deals with internal investigations, such as
those to combat corruption, as well as the handling of complaints and
civil actions.
Tarique Ghaffur was born in Uganda, East Africa, coming to this country just before his family was expelled by ldi Amin He joined Greater Manchester Police as a constable in 1974, serving with that force for 15 years, and rising to the rank of Chief Inspector