A development which has, perhaps, hidden the particular safety as well as physical and emotional needs of girls is what has been called the search for equivalence. This refers to the aim of some campaigning groups to gain equivalent public interest in the problems or misdeeds of the other gender where, historically, the focus has been on only one gender. The clearest examples are to be found in family law practice. There we find, for example, the construction of women (rather than just men) as perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse,[785] and also pressure, from men’s groups, for men (rather than just women) to be constructed as victims of parental separation.[786] What such ‘evening up’ may do is to hide the different extents and natures of those phenomena that are united by a common name. This can lead to the assumption that there is no need for gender-specific approaches to dealing with the problems. Specifically, it hides any need to treat girls and boys who offend differently if their needs and family backgrounds are different.[787] It also legitimates the use of gender-neutral risk assessment tools such as those already mentioned.
Arguably, the assessment, supervision and detention of young male and female offenders are not given adequate analysis in theory or in policy. This may well stem from the fact that youth victimology, as Muncie points out, is non-existent and it is still not fully appreciated that young people are often both victims and offenders.[788] The findings of the Girls in Prison report, summarised above, support the finding of many research studies, which reveal that the proportion of offenders with abusive backgrounds is far higher than that of the general popula — tion.[789] A recent survey found that, prior to custody, 83 per cent of the boys and 65 per cent of the girls had been excluded from school, whilst 37 per cent of boys and 43 per cent of girls had been accommodated by the local authority.[790] Further, in 2000, of 15-20 year olds in prison service establishments, 90 per cent had a diagnosable mental health problem.[791] Offending not only re-categorises the child from victim to offender, but also removes him or her — temporarily or permanently — from the family justice system or the mainstream health service. Almost half of all girls in custody have been the subject of that move.[792]
Conclusions
Developments in policy relating to children who offend have significant implications for family life. What we know about the background and treatment of girls who engage in anti-social or offending behaviour suggests the potential for parental behaviour to have differential impacts in relation to their male and female children, and that parents face different outcomes for their male and female children who end up in the youth justice system. Further, the ability of the family justice system and family law to protect such girls must be assessed in the light of the increasing scope, powers and resources of the youth justice agencies. Indeed, Danner[793] has pointed out that the mothers of such girls may be disadvantaged by the movement of resources from social welfare to criminal justice policies, not simply in reduced benefits but also in reduced opportunities for traditional ‘female’ work in social services. Women generally are also being disadvantaged by the extra caring responsibilities resulting from the rising imprisonment rate: they may be left caring single-handedly for (the father’s) children, or they may find themselves looking after the children of imprisoned daughters. Consequently: ‘It is often the women and children who are left out, sometimes unintentionally. . . by the cumulative impact of crime control policies which adversely harm women.’[794]
Yet, despite the media and research focus on the offending of girls, girls and their mothers are virtually invisible in the processes of responding to their offending or their anti-social behaviour, particularly in analyses of ‘youth’ sentencing and punishment. There is now a growing focus on girls in prison but still very little attention to girls punished in the community or diverted to preventative projects in the community. Whilst there is, as now, inequality of opportunity, of societal expectations and of life experiences for girls and young women who offend, differential treatment is potentially necessary and should be considered in all individual assessments and in devising general programmes and institutional regimes. As a first step, there should be proper monitoring of gender in the ever-widening youth justice system. The difficulty is currently in finding out what is happening to young female offenders — and those girls being brought within the system because of their risk of offending — and this chapter has, consequently, prompted far more questions than it has answered.
There are, however, signs of change. Anne Owers, as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, has given valuable publicity to the shortcomings of prisons for women and girls. Campaigning groups such as the Howard League and NACRO are again focusing on the experiences of girls in the youth justice system and in detention, as references to important research reports have evidenced. Further, the concern about the perceived increasing ‘danger’ from girl criminals is itself forcing policy development of responses. The urgent need, then, is for more empirical research — on boys and girls — and for that research to be brought to the attention of policy makers. Currently, the standard of the conditions in which children are held in penal detention is far below that envisaged by rights conventions. When addressing these shortcomings, there needs to be explicit attention to girls and boys. What is also required is an assessment of the role of, and burdens on, mothers, at least to counterbalance the assumptions about the importance of fathers.
References
Alder, C (2003) ‘Young women offenders and the challenge of restorative justice’, in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G and Westmarland, L (eds) Restorative
Justice, Critical Issues, London/Milton Keynes: Sage Publications/Open University Press
Batchelor, S and Burman, M (2004) ‘Working with girls and young women’, in McIvor, G (ed) Research Highlights in Social Work: Female Offenders and Female Offending, London: Jessica Kingsley
Borrill, J, Snow, L, Medlicott, D, Teers, R and Paton, J (2005) ‘Learning from “near misses”: Interviews with women who survived an incident of self-harm in prison’, 44(1) Howard J 57
Boyle, C, Fairbridge, S, Kinch, K, Cochran, P, Smyth, R and Chunn, D (2002) ‘The criminalization of young women: An editor’s forum’, 14 Canadian J of Women and the Law 389
Burman, M, Batchelor, S and Brown, J (2001) ‘Researching girls and violence’, 41 British J of Criminology 443
Burney, E (2002) ‘Talking tough, acting coy: What happened to the anti-social behaviour order?’, 41(5) Howard J 469
Campbell, B (2003) ‘ “Infant warriors”: Boys, mothers, men and domestic violence’, 54 Criminal Justice Matters 4
Carlen, P (1983) Women’s Imprisonment, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Carlen, P (2001-2) ‘Gender-specific projects for female lawbreakers: Questions of survival’, 46 Criminal Justice Matters 44
Chesney-Lind, M and Pasko, L (2004) The Female Offender: Girls, Women and Crime, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks and London: Sage
Creighton, S (2004) Prevalence and Incidence of Child Abuse: International Comparisons, London: NSPCC
Crowley, A (1998) A Criminal Waste: A Study of Child Offenders Eligible for Secure Training Centres, London: The Children’s Society
Danner, M (1998) ‘Three strikes and it’s women who are out’, in Miller, S (ed) Crime Control and Women, Thousand Oaks and London: Sage
Day Sclater, S and Piper, C (2000) ‘Re-moralising the family? Family policy, family law and youth justice’, 12(2) Child and Family Law Quarterly 135
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003) Every Child Matters, www. dfes. gov. uk/everychildmatters/
DfES (2004a) Every Child Matters: Next Steps, www. dfes. gov. uk/everychildmat- ters/pdfs/EveryChild MattersNextSteps. pdf
DfES (2004b) Offenders of the Future? Assessing the Risk of Children and Young People becoming Involved in Criminal or Antisocial Behaviour, Research Report, London: DfES
DfES (2004c) Referrals, Assessments and Children and Young People on Child Protection Registers: Year ending 31st March 2004, London: HMSO
DfES (2005) Youth Matters, CM 6299, London: DfES
Drakeford, M and Vanstone, M (2000) ‘Social exclusion and the politics of criminal justice: A tale of two administrations’, 39(4) Howard Journal 369
Easton, S and Piper, C (2005) Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Edwards, S (1984) Women on Trial, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Farrington, D and Painter, K (2004) Gender Differences in Offending: Implications for Risk-Focused Offending, Home Office Online Report 09/04, London: Home Office
Fortin, J (2003) Children’s Rights and the Developing Law, 2nd edn, London: Lexis Nexis
Fortin, J (2004) ‘Children’s rights: Are the courts now taking them seriously?’ 15 King’s College LJ 253
Gelsthorpe, L (1986) ‘Towards a sceptical look at sexism’, 14 International J of Sociology of Law 25
Gender and Justice Policy Network (2001) Response to the Halliday Report
Harris, R and Webb, D (1987) Welfare, Power and Juvenile Justice, London: Tavistock Publications
Hedderman, C and Gelsthorpe, L (1997) Understanding the Sentencing of Women, Home Office Research Study 170, London: Home Office
Heidensohn, F (1986) ‘Models of justice: Portia or Persephone? Some thoughts on equality, fairness and gender in the field of criminal justice’, 14 International J of Sociology of Law 287
Hibbert, P, Moore, S and Monaghan, G (2003) Children in Trouble — Time for Change, Ilford: Barnardo’s
HM Inspectorate of Prisons (in conjunction with the Youth Justice Board) (2004) Juveniles in Custody: A Unique Insight into the Perceptions of Young People Held in Prison Service Custody in English and Wales, London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons
HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2005) Inspection of HMP Holloway, London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons
Holdaway, S and Desborough, S (2004) Final warning Projects: The National Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s Final Warning Projects, London: Youth Justice Board
Home Office (2000) The Crime and Disorder Act, Guidance Document: Reparation Order, London: Home Office
Home Office (2003a) Restorative Justice: The Government’s Strategy, Consultation Paper, London: Home Office
Home Office (2003b) Youth Justice — The Next Steps, London: Home Office
Home Office (2003c) Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 2002 (Cm 6054)
Home Office (2004a) Youth Justice — The Next Steps: Summary of Responses and the Government’s Proposals, London: Home Office
Home Office (2004b) Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 2003, (Cm 6361)
Home Office, Dept for Constitutional Affairs, Youth Justice Board (2004) Parenting Contracts & Orders Guidance, London: Home Office
Howard League (1997) Lost Inside — The Imprisonment of Teenage Girls, London: Howard League
Howard League for Penal Reform (2004) Advice, Understanding and Underwear: Working with Girls in Prison, London: Howard League
Hudson, A (2002) ‘ “Troublesome girls”: Towards alternative definitions and policies’, in Muncie, J, Hughes, G and McLaughlin, E (eds) Youth Justice: Critical Readings, London: Sage/Open University Press
Hudson, B (1994) ‘Discrimination and the young adult offender’, NACRO Conference, 20-22 April, Sheffield
Hudson, B (2002) ‘Gender issues in penal policy and penal theory’, in Carlen, P (ed) Women and Punishment: The Struggle for Justice, Cullompton: Willan Publishing
Lyon, J, Dennison, C and Wilson, A (2000) Tell Them So They Listen: Messages from Young People in Custody, Home Office Research Study 201, London: HMSO
Miller, S (1998) ‘Introduction’, in Miller, S (ed) Crime Control and Women, Thousand Oaks and London: Sage
Morris, A (1988) ‘Sex and sentencing’, [1988] Criminal Law Review 163
Muncie, J (2003) ‘Youth, risk and victimisation’, in Davies, P, Francis, P and Jupp, V (eds) Victimisation: Theory, Research and Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
NACRO Youth Crime (2001) ‘Girls in the youth justice system’, Youth Crime Briefing, London: NACRO
Office for Standards in Education (2004) Girls in Prison: The Education and Training of Under-18s Serving Detention and Training Orders, London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons
Owers, A in conversation with Wadsworth, N (2005) ‘Interview’, 213 Childright 8
Pearson, R (1976) ‘Women defendants in Magistrates’ Courts’, 3 British J of Law and Society 265
Piper, C (1994) ‘Parental responsibility and the Education Acts’, 24 Family Law 146
Piper, C (1999) ‘The Crime and Disorder Act — child or community safety?’, 62 Modern Law Review 397
Piper, C (2001) ‘Who are these youths? Language in the service of policy’, 1(2) Youth Justice 30
Piper, C (2005) ‘Welfare, social exclusion and the importance of being at risk’, Seminar on Children and the Concept of Best Interests, 5 May, Keele University
Piper, C and Kaganas, F (1997) ‘The Family Law Act 1996 s1(d): How will “they” know there is a risk of violence?’, 9(3) Child and Family Law Quarterly 269
Roberts, J (2002) ‘Women-centred: The West Mercia community-based programme for women offenders’, in Carlen, P (ed) Women and Punishment: The Struggle for Justice, Cullompton: Willan Publishing
Walklate, S (2003) ‘Can there be a feminist victimology?’ in Davies, P, Francis, P and Jupp, V (eds) Victimisation: Theory, Research and Policy, London: Palgrave Macmillan
Webb, D (1984) ‘More on gender and justice: Girl offenders on supervision’, 18(3) Sociology 367
Worrall, A (2002) ‘Rendering women punishable: The making of a penal crisis’, in Carlen, P (ed) Women and Punishment: The Struggle for Justice, Cullompton: Willan Publishing
Youth Justice Board (2004) Government Response to the Audit Commission Report — Youth Justice 2004: A Review of the Reformed Youth Justice System, London: Youth Justice Board
Chapter 10