A critical examination of Social Control in relation to Risk Management and the negative impact this has on Youth Offenders
By: Mustafa Hussain
Tags: Youth, Criminal Justice, Crime, Sociology

A critical examination of Social Control in relation to Risk Management and the negative impact this has on Youth Offenders Mustafa Hussain Jul 1, 2020·12 min read

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains”

- Jean Jacques Rousseau (1765)

In this essay we will be examining social control, in particular, the roles of authority figures and school concerning risk management as well as exploring the impact it has on youth offenders, in particular, the white working-class male who currently have poor academic outcomes as well as a high level of criminality (Strand, 2014). In the first paragraph, we will be examining social control as a theory and how it may work in controlling crime and producing conforming behaviour. We will then discuss the specific idea of social control through authority figures and the role of education systems concerning risk management to decide whether or not it is an effective way of controlling behaviour in relation to youth offenders.

The concept of social control can be interpreted in many different ways (Cohen, 1989). At its most general, it describes the theoretical social processes directed at reducing delinquent behaviour and subsequently reducing the number of offenders by maintaining the ways of life as well as the social practices of groups (Innes, 2003). Social control is primarily based on the idea of social contract theory. Social contract theory has been around since the 1600s where it was first introduced by Thomas Hobbes whom himself believed that in the state of nature, men are naturally and exclusively self-interested which leads to a perpetual state of war (Hampton, 1996). According to Hobbes, this is due to limited resources with a lack of power, forcing men to cooperate, which is necessary for a functioning society. Hobbes also believed that men are somewhat rational actors, so would recognise and accept such power by recognising the need for authority (Hobbes, 1975). Hobbes stated a need for absolute authority, such as that of a sovereign state. This is somewhat different to John Locke who stressed the need for authority but not an absolute one, suggesting that society should be run, so each person gives up some of their liberties in order for reliance on the state to protect their interests which he deemed as necessary for a fair and functioning society (Locke, 2003). This social contract is very much in effect today with people giving up privacy in order to be kept safe from any perceivable threat by giving up more freedoms and accepting ever-expanding surveillance and control methods (Kellner, 2003) This shown by the ever-expanding emergence of CCTV cameras as a form of ‘societally dispersed Panopticon’ (Koskela, 2003) This is more true in the UK than anywhere else with London being one of the most heavily monitored cities on earth (Ratcliffe, 2019).

The idea of social control is to produce conforming behaviour as well controlling crime through preventing delinquency through measures of control, which occur at all levels from the household they grow up into the laws of the nation. This increased need for social control comes from an increased fear of victimisation (Innes, 2003) perpetuated by the media’s accentuated focus on crime (Grier and Reiner, 2015). A focus that aims to decontextualise complex events to reflect narratives that demonise and offer simple explanations (Best, 1995)This overemphasis on crime leads to an inevitable moral panic and subsequent fear of crime. This fear of crime has great political utility, as it joins crime with an idea of nonconformity and deviancy (Hornqvist, 2004). This then leads to widespread public support for social control efforts leading to a change in public policy aimed at reducing anti-social behaviour that is associated with social disorder and deviant behaviour (Cohen, 1980; Althiede, 2009).

These social control methods are not just formal control measures in terms of national laws but have been ingrained into the culture, leading to informal forms of social control such as in the household and community people grow up in, to the educational institutions they attend from very young (Black, 1983). These education systems often work to carry out the commands of society and enforce them on students in order to offer adequate knowledge into the minds of students to fit into the demands of societal norms (Durkheim, 1956). This control is often given to deter potential ‘self-destructive’ desire in order to fit in with the demands of a larger society, examples of this control in education can be seen from the universal dress code and mannerism codes that are enforced on all students (Bernstein, 1971). These codes and ties to a sound education system are seen to be a necessity in society as they are seen to be ‘crucial part of diminishing one’s inclination for deviant behaviour’ (Hirschi, 2002) hypothetically leading to a lower level of offending in the long term. In actuality this form of social control, particularly in the classroom only works to alienate and label those who do not conform to societal norms potentially leading to further delinquency in later life. This harsh level of social control is shown by the ‘disciplinary’ methods that are carried out when conformity inducement is seen to be unsuccessful, often referring to overt punishment in order to repress behaviour that may be considered by some as deviant. This discipline is socially constructed and is very much symbolic of a “space of trouble” that students fall into when not conforming to the normative expectations of school settings (Irby, 2014). Potential acts of misbehaviour by students does not only earn the condemnation of their teachers but also leads to a loss of reputation amongst their peers potentially leading to ostracisation and shame (Sharp et al, 2017). This ostracisation can lead to a further sense of social alienation which is particularly damaging amongst youth leading to a sense of powerlessness.

It should be noted that punishment itself does not lead to gaps in discipline or even funnel students into the school to prison pipeline (Irby, 2014) but it does however, have profoundly counterproductive effects on the main aim of education through overly punitive punishment to seemingly minor misbehaviour. By doing this they miss the opportunity to address the real reasons for youth misbehaving (Kupchik, 2010). This is made worse for students that attend urban schools with lower levels of funding who are at higher risk of facing harsh disciplinary regimes such as expulsion particularly for those who come from inner-cities and working-class families (Gregory et al., 2011). These harsh disciplinary methods are used to ‘manage risk’ and therefore are perceived to be mandatory in deterring ‘at risk’ students from partaking in further delinquent acts. However, this could not be further from the truth as students who behave badly enough to be expelled are often sent to educational institutions that are consistently stuck in a cycle of low performance for 13 or more years (Busby, 2020). These types of social control and punitive discipline methods in the name of ‘Risk Management’ are not very beneficial to all students; instead working to alienate children from the academic curriculum making it more likely for them to be funnelled into the school to prison pipeline which undoubtedly has a negative impact on the rest of their lives (Irby, 2014).

As mentioned previously, these Hobbesian methods of risk management within the education system are particularly damaging. They have been identified regularly as being a primary reason for the high level of youth offending particularly in that of white working-class males who make up a large proportion of all youth offenders (Briscoe et al., 2017). Particularly damaging is that of the exclusionary discipline practices such as suspensions which are all too familiar within the education system. These practices do not help; instead they hinder and interfere with academic progress subsequently reaffirming the failure cycle of these ‘at-risk’ students which then leads to a decrease in opportunities to gain academic skills and appropriate social behaviours that they may require outside of the educational environment (Costenbader & Markson, 1998). The ineffectiveness of such harsh disciplinary practices is further shown by research on suspension, which consistently indicates that, despite its all too frequent usage, it is not effective in reducing behavioural problems (Civil Rights Project, 2000; McFadden & Marsh, 1992). It is also often cited as a primary reason for young people dropping out of school altogether (Baker et al., 2001). This shows that disciplinary practices of risk management often work to remove students from academia and the educational practices, which therefore have unfortunate implications for their long term life chances (Stahl, 2017). Particularly for those that are from a low socioeconomic background which includes white working-class male who consistently ranks as the worst-performing ethnic group (Stahl, 2017; Adams, 1990) often pushing them into the prison pipeline with many of these young men, unfortunately, engaging in high levels of criminality (Strand, 2014).

The emergence of a high number of white working-class boys into the ‘prison pipeline’ may come as a surprise to some due to the high level of a perceived privilege that comes with being white. However, it has been argued by Preston that just merely being White is not something that all groups benefit from equally (Preston, 2009), but there are “grades of whiteness”. These grades are almost always saturated with distinctions of class, nation and gender (Garner, 2012). These distinctions are shown by the mass media who continuously work to demonise the working-class by consistently holding them responsible for a variety of social issues (Stahl, 2017). This shows that being white is shaped by class and various cultural practices (Moore, 2013). These white working-class people from low-income areas are often associated with the slanderous and often derogatory terminology of the word “chav” (Preston, 2009). These “chavs” are often portrayed in the media as personifying laziness, rudeness, criminality, as well as undertaking an anti-educational stance (Skegs, 2004). When in reality, those that are white working-class have specific barriers to educational attainment such as a low level of parental engagement as well as an apparent lack of community. However, those from other ethnic groups that may be seen as equally as disadvantaged and in need of support usually have access to special programs primarily focused on raising academic achievement, support that is not regularly offered to those from a white background (Demie and Lewis, 2010). Despite all these explanations for reaffirming the white working-class as a “new race victim” (Keddie, 2013). Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are frequently blamed for their own “failure” to act responsibly in regards to their academic progress (Reay, 2009). Despite the fact that those from working-class backgrounds regardless of colour or ethnicity have historically attended underfunded and often poorly resources schools (McCulloch, 1998) which as mentioned previously only works to further funnel these disadvantaged boys into the ‘prison pipeline’.

As stated previously, white working-class boys are consistently failed by the educational institutions that were put in place to mould their behaviours into what is deemed socially acceptable in mainstream society. The question we now ask is, What happens next to these ‘academic failures’. Unfortunately, the reality of these circumstances become much more apparent with a vast majority of court-involved youth offenders experiencing academic failure or school exclusion (Christle et al., 2005). These lack of academic achievements greatly hinder their ability to gain an honest and decent living. This is regularly shown by the employment advantages given to those who excel academically with entry into higher-level jobs often being restricted to graduates in many cases requiring professional degrees (Wise, 1975).

Moreover, with just 17 per cent of white working-class boys attaining five or more A*-Cs at GCSE compared to a 56 per cent national average (Centre for Social Justice, 2006) the probability of landing a decent job is severely reduced. These social structures of employment as well as the dominant masculine culture of ‘providing for the family’ (Russell, 1981) and other such socially accepted goals often work to pressure these young boys into committing crimes as a means to acquire financial stability (Agnew, 2015). This often wrong path inevitably leads to young boys going through the criminal justice system. A system that primarily promotes retributivism. These processes include forms of risk management such as, short term juvenile sentences, which often last from 11.4 to 16.7 months within a juvenile detention facility ultimately working as another form of social control (Ministry of Justice, 2019). This form of social control aims to use retributive and proportional punishment to deter these youth offenders from reoffending (Lambie and Randall, 2013). However, in practicality, it does almost the opposite with 40.9 per cent of young offenders reoffending. A rate that is on average higher amongst custodial sentences of under 12 months compared to those who may be sentenced to serve the community via court orders and even those with longer sentences (Mews et al., 2015; Myers, 2003). A reoffending rate that is no doubt greatly exacerbated by not only the academic failure but also the community in which the offender is usually from and will ultimately return to when released (Hayner and Ash, 1940). When arriving back at the community these youth offenders usually do not learn how to be accepted and behave as a law-abiding citizen, instead learning the rules of an institutionalised routine which is utilised as a form of radical social control which above all else leads to their community seeing them as peculiar and often deviant as these formats do not occur on the outside (Hayner and Ash, 1940). This peculiarity subsequently leads to further social exclusion as well as further labelling, which subsequently plays a role in the high recidivism rate of youth offenders. This idea of further labelling is also referred to as secondary deviance. This is when the reaction of others, in this case, the community of the young offender, further labels them as ‘deviant’, even after serving their sentence. This then leads to the potentially one-time young offenders adopting a ‘Master status’ by acting in accordance with the label leading to a significantly higher chance of becoming a career criminal (Lemert, 1951; Cicourel, 1995; Becker, 2008). This shows that even when serving after serving their time in remand under the guise of high levels of social control in the name of risk management, these youth offenders are ultimately shunned from their community and further labelled as deviant which may lead to a higher rate of reoffending.

Not only are these short term custodial sentences hugely ineffective in reducing recidivism rates as well as deterring crime, but they are also mostly damaging mentally and physically to the youth that they are aimed towards. In recent years we have seen a large proportion of youth offenders suffer from mental health issues such as depression and suicidal thoughts (Lambie and Randall, 2013) as well as having a high prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Stimmel et al., 2014). These mental health issues are well documented but hardly addressed as mental health systems are not well integrated within the juvenile justice system (Rapp-Paglicci, 2007). This lack of integration can alarmingly be seen in the increase of self-harm incidents within custody which rose by a staggering 40% to 1,800 incidents in 2018(Ministry of Justice, 2019). These incidents are likely exacerbated by experiencing the adverse conditions within these facilities (Lambie and Randall, 2013). These unpleasant conditions may also help in explaining the increase in the victimisation of youth offenders with a large proportion of youth becoming victims of bullying as well as feeling isolated (Greve, 2001). Those victimised from bullying within custody, are on average, Nine times more likely to self-harm as well as attempting suicide (Kiriakidis, 2008). These figures show that incarceration for youth offenders leads to a variety of mental health problems that are not adequately treated by these juvenile facilities. These negative impacts of their stay during their adolescence not only have short term effects but long term ones who ultimately result in further adverse outcomes during adulthood (Lambie and Randall, 2013).

It is clear that these punitive methods of punishing young offenders are highly unsuccessful, and another format is needed in order to deal with them. In this case, recommending a rehabilitative approach to youth offenders. An approach that will include support for drug and substance abuse in young offenders as well as providing the mental health support necessary to help deal with these problems. As shown previously, young offenders, in particular, the white working-class remain the lowest-performing ethnic group within the school system (Okilwa et al., 2017) with many below their chronological age in terms of reading, spelling and cognitive abilities (Kroll et al., 2002). This is partially due to the issues of social control as well the disciplinary methods utilised by the schooling system as mentioned above, as well as a severe underfunding of schools within low-income neighbourhoods (Busby, 2020). In order to deal with this a recommendation of increased funding to schools within low-income areas ensuring they meet OFSTED requirements, as well as this an abolishment of the harsh disciplinary system of suspensions and exclusions which as stated before do more harm than help these troubled kids.

In conclusion, social control within the schooling and juvenile systems may prove to work for some but does not work for all (Christle et al., 2005) These levels of social control which theoretically are meant to reduce a child’s prominence for delinquency but in more ways than one hinder the child, eventually forcing them down the prison pipeline. From here things do not get easier, as a significant proportion of these children are given short term sentences which often lead to victimisation, further exacerbating delinquent behaviour and problematic mental health issues that are not adequately dealt with within the system. Once released the child is then forced to readapt to a world they are not used to while being shunned from their community, who still apply a deviant label on to them further pushing them towards a criminal career.