Social work intervention can unintentionally push the young offender closer toward a custodial sentence. Social workers and probation officers are not entirely blameless in accounting for the large number of young people in detention centres and borstals. As part of the sentencing process probation officers need to be mindful of their part in the operation of the sentencing tariff.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Letter to The Guardian Newspaper, Tutt, N. 6th March 1980.
2.
As quoted by Tutt, N., in 'A Decade of Policy'. The British Journal of Criminology, Vol 21, 3, July 1981.
3.
Thomas, H.A. 'Receptions into a Juvenile Detention Centre' (unpublished paper). Nottinghamshire Probation and After-Care Service.
4.
A recent study of receptions into Ashwell Prison upon persons whom social enquiry reports were prepared indicates that 11 per cent were recommended for custody. Leicester Probation and After-Care Service.
5.
Home Office Statistical Unit (New Initiatives Data) 1981.
6.
On a related note, the tendency to tariff hoist children may not be the particular prerogative of social workers as there is now some evidence to suggest that Police Juvenile Liaison Bureaux may well be engaging in a similar exercise in terms of formally cautioning children who previously would have been dealt with informally. This matter becomes significant now that cautions are taken into account in either a decision to prosecute or are given as 'pre-conviction data' in juvenile court hearings.
7.
Cawson-'Young Offenders in Care 1978' as mentioned in NACRO Briefing Paper No 1—'Sending Young Offenders Away'.
8.
Thorpe, D.-as mentioned in NACRO Briefing Paper No 1—'Sending Young Offenders Away'.
9.
Crook, Canton, Storer, Mulrenan'Study of Entries into Detention Centre' (unpublished paper). Nottinghamshire Probation and After-Care Service.
10.
Thomas, H.A. , op cit.
11.
Becker, H.Outsiders. The New York Free Press, 1963.
