Letter: Home Secretary's crime proposals are short-sighted
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: As an organisation working with and for children and young people, we are very critical of the short-sighted proposals put forward by Michael Howard for dealing with young offenders.
The proposals are likely to increase, rather than decrease, the level of juvenile crime in the UK. This is because research has shown time and time again that locking up young offenders and subjecting them to punitive regime confirms young people in their offending behaviour rather than deterring them.
Mr Howard is proposing that the maximum one-year sentence in young offender institutions be doubled; that new secure training units be established to lock up persistent young offenders aged 12-14; and to end repeat cautioning, even of young offenders.
There is, of course, legitimate concern about juvenile offenders, but these measures will exacerbate the problem, not help to solve it.
Yours faithfully,
JENNY KUPER
The Children's Legal Centre
London, N1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments