The Howard League for Penal Reform has reiterated its call to abolish the Anti-Social Behaviour Order for children. On the day the election was announced it warned political parties not to ‘whip up fear and loathing of already marginalised groups just for electoral advantage’.

NACRO (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders) said the policy of ‘naming and shaming’ young people on ASBOs ‘irresponsibly stigmatises children’.

The two charities were responding to Tuesday’s publication of the Home Affairs Committee report on anti-social behaviour.

Frances Crook, director of the Howard League said: ‘Prevention and welfare should be the only factors when deciding how to respond to children who misbehave and penal sanctions should have no place. The Howard League for Penal Reform recognises that some children are very challenging and we appreciate the distress that serious anti-social behaviour can cause individuals or communities, but, in order to address this effectively, imaginative and effective child-centred interventions are needed. We fear that current legislation has the effect of widening the net of the criminal justice system, by criminalising naughty children and their parents, the mentally ill and those in social housing.

‘Anti-social behaviour legislation relies on a low burden of proof. It does not rely on an objective test of behaviour but on the reaction to that behaviour by others. Yet anti-social behaviour legislation uses the criminal justice system if the original order is breached.

‘There is a blurring of the boundaries between civil and criminal law which has serious implications for due process and the rights of the child. We call on all politicians to behave responsibly when discussing crime and anti-social behaviour during the election period. The Home Affairs Committee report indicates that fewer people now perceive anti-social behaviour to be a problem in their area and that is to be welcomed. It would therefore be irresponsible to whip up fear and loathing of already marginalised groups just for electoral advantage. We all need to work together to create a safer society.’

The charity said that it is concerned about the vagueness and degree of interpretation regarding what constitutes anti-social behaviour and responses to it.

Cook continued: ‘It is our view that the current approach is punitive and is likely to exacerbate social exclusion, which, in turn, is likely to compound problems of anti-social behaviour rather than resolve them. People with difficult and chaotic lives need support not exclusion in order to be helped to change their lives. Children have seemingly become the main focus of concern relating to anti-social behaviour in our communities.’

The charity stated:
• Children have a right to use public spaces, yet groups of children can be dispersed if their presence is thought to cause distress. It is contradictory that children are encouraged to hang around in the arena of the school playground from a very young age yet when they continue this method of social interaction in the street it is characterised as menacing.

Many children are in public spaces as no organised or structured activities like youth clubs exist, others may choose to spend time away from home due to the quality of their housing or domestic situation.
Young people like to form informal and fluid social groups in public places where they feel safe, they do not want to sit down to dinner parties. Sweeping powers to disperse groups of young people may serve to increase young people’s isolation, as well as miss an opportunity to support and help young people with problems that they may have.

• In some areas, for example Manchester, we have become aware of leaflets carrying the names and photographs of children involved in anti-social behaviour. Such actions will put these individual children at risk and it may encourage even more anger and resentment in local communities fostering a ‘lynch mob’ mentality. Indeed it appears that the leaflets were merely a publicity stunt at the expense of the children and not a crime prevention initiative as the helpline number provided was bogus with no one answering having any knowledge of what to do.

• Evidence has shown that a policy of naming and shaming is counter-productive. Naming cannot be separated from shaming. Research from Australia (notably John Braithwaite) has shown that un-resolved shame, shaming without subsequent reintegration results in the rejection of the standards that are expected and increases the likelihood of reoffending.

• Arguments that the public needs to know the prohibitions of an ASBO to enable them to report violations do not really stand up to scrutiny.Individuals affected by the anti-social behaviour would be aware of what is happening without publicity.

• The Howard League for Penal Reform is alarmed at the number of children ending up in penal establishments as a result of breaching ASBOs.It is reported that Hassockfield Secure Training Centre holds 17 per cent of its boys and 33 per cent of its girls for breaching an ASBO (Donovan 2004).Involvement in activities that have only merited a civil sanction now lead to the use of the most severe sanction of the criminal justice system.

• The Howard League for Penal Reform believes that the current upward trend in the numbers of juveniles held in penal establishments is not wholly unconnected with the use of imprisonment for those breaching ASBOs.

• ASBOs are used exclusively against working class children.
Chris Stanley, Head of Youth Crime for Nacro, said: ‘We disagree with the report’s conclusion that “naming and shaming” is often essential to enforce ASBOs.

‘Name and shame campaigns infringe a child’s right to privacy under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and do not address the serious issues underlying youth offending. In reality, they not only reinforce an unrealistic perception and fear of crime, but irresponsibly stigmatise children making it harder for them to eventually play a positive role in their communities and put them in real danger of possible vigilante action.

‘We welcome the report’s recommendation that, in the case of children under the age of 18, the law is amended to give magistrates greater discretion to set the duration of an ASBO. The current minimum duration of two years for an ASBO is inappropriate for children. The report concludes that 42 per cent of ASBOs are breached, which “compares favourably with other non-custodial youth justice interventions”.

‘We disagree with this comparison – ASBOs are a civil injunction, not an offence, so they cannot be compared to something like a community sentence. We are concerned that ASBO breaches have created a fast route into custody and a situation where young people are ending up in custody for low level disorder offences which would not warrant a custodial sentence under normal circumstances. With 82 per cent of young offenders re-offending within two years of release from custody, we know that prison is not effective in tackling the root causes of offending behaviour or reducing future offending.’