Peer courts - a good idea?

“Think back to the London riots, just think how many young people would not have gone to prison in 2011 if these systems were in place then?”

A Conservative London Assembly Member, James Cleverly, is calling for a dramatic change in the approach to ‘teenage criminals’. He is asking the Met Police Commissioner to introduce ‘Peer Courts’ – ‘a programme outside the formal criminal justice system where teenagers, including ex-offenders, sentence their peers for minor offences. Sitting just beneath the justice system, they offer first time offenders an alternative to the criminal justice system’.

So, what do we think?

We at urban wisdom believe in second chances, and we think that the peer court system offers just that for first time offenders of petty crimes. It’s a massive shame for any young person to face the full brunt of the criminal justice system, especially if the crime was a genuine mistake or impulse.

Our team took to the streets to get the opinions of some of the young people that live in our great city to see how they feel about it. Here are a few of their views:

“This is really interesting stuff, but I think should be approached with caution! Demographic challenges spring to mind; attitude and what is acceptable in one area could be very different in another. Who is setting the guidelines and how much/little supervision would be given to the jurors? That said, this sort of scheme could have great potential.”

“Think back to the London riots, just think how many young people would not have gone to prison in 2011 if these systems were in place then?”

“I would say it just has to be properly monitored by a creditable adult professional.”

“It’s a bit like a referral order.”

“Different areas have different needs – who is to say that this system will work in all areas of the UK?”

One main concern being expressed time and time again is the monitoring of the system that is being proposed. Who will be responsible for supervising this? We think that strict guidelines need to be clear from the word go if this initiative is to be given the green light.

Training is essential in a role like this, as people will be given the power to sentence their peers. What will the training course comprise of? Who will be teaching it? What support will be on hand for the judges?

R, 16, said:

“It’s a good idea because it can help teenagers who want to work in law to gain experience. Also I think a lot of the youths today glorify prison to be a cool place by creating the image of a ‘gangster’. But sentencing these offenders to apologise to the victim and to have counselling can help them to really see the error of their ways and change their minds for the future. However, I think allowing teenage volunteers to get involved with young offenders could lead to bullying of the volunteers. This is because the offender may be in their school or area with little protection around, and it could therefore be a safety risk. It needs the right safety precautions to keep risks low. It could really help teenagers to have another chance to redeem and better themselves, they will have more chance to realise the low life ‘gangster’ image is wrong, instead of criminalising them and further pushing them that way.”

In summary…

Many of the young people we spoke to are in support of the peer court idea, across the board we have had positive feedback. It does supply a second chance to many, and it could instill a greater sense of responsibility and empathy for the young offenders. However most of these views are examples of the same concerns about how it will be run and what support, supervision and safety measures will be implemented. And if it doesn’t work in an area for whatever reason, what will be the next step?

We at Urban Wisdom really like the idea of young people being able to have a say in the sentencing of peers. Apologising to victims and counselling is a great alternative to being sent to juvenile court, it really gets to the root of the issue rather than shoving the young person into the formal criminal justice system. Peer courts, if run well, seem to allow a sense of dignity to the defendant which is something that is seriously lacking in the formal justice system.

…Upon some further research, James Cleverly was quoted as saying peer courts “are significantly cheaper” and how “when budgets are tight [...] we have to think radically about how we handle young offenders”. It seems as though peer courts are only being put into place due to the limited amount of money available. Peer courts should be put into place if it has been evaluated to be the best option for young people, not based on the fact that there are budget cuts and “ambitious aims”. We should not be putting a price on the well-being of our future generation!

Courtesy of Urban Wisdom