|
INTRODUCTION
The Anti-Social Behaviour Orders policy or ASBO for short has
been receiving quite an attention in the UK. Perhaps, because the UK
society has never experienced anything like it before, it grabs the
attention of almost anyone in the country. People see ASBO in various ways
but the media and other non-governmental civil societies mostly criticize
it than giving praise.
Like any other act, the
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has its strengths and shortcomings. The
government, however, sees the act as the solution to the problem of
anti-social behaviours within UK communities. ASBO, as an act that can
sentence up to five years in prison to a person who is unruly towards the
community, seems to have sharp teeth and nails that promise to punish
offenders. But is this really the case? Is punishment really an effective
substitute to education? One thing is lacking in ASBO – it does not
address the deep root of anti-social behaviour problems through
educational and therapeutic interventions. To elaborate, psychologists
never suggest that punishment is the key to resolve a specific behaviour
problem. Instead, they would suggest something like educating the
relatives of the person suffering from behaviour problem or undergoing
cognitive behavioural therapy or other kinds of therapy that may help
produce behaviour change. The implication of this limitation of ASBO are
becoming obvious when a complainant is unsatisfied after the person being
complained about goes back to his or her unruly and pesky behaviour after
serving ASBO for a few months (Rawstorne, 2004). Others, on the other
hand, see ASBO as a legislation that may be used wrongly as it contradicts
with basic human rights such as protesting, privacy, and even safety
(Sims, 2004).
In relation to UK social
policy, ASBO may also experience some problems. For instance, the
UK has a highly centralised system of government, and the powers of local
government are very limited. Central government exercises considerable
controls over local action. This may slow the process of the ASBO or may
even result in higher cost. The failure of the local government to put
central government policies immediately into effect may affect the
effective implementation of ASBO. There are also other areas to look at -
like social security, the NHS, housing policy, education policy, and
personal social services. The limitations shown early by ASBO in the wake
of its implementation clearly states the need for it re-evaluation – on
whether or not it will provide the UK society the welfare it deserves.
Social policy is a very broad term is which the welfare of a country as a
whole is addressed. This paper will try to determine how ASBO relates with
the UK social policy as it evaluates its strengths and weaknesses in
relation to each policy areas.
As a means to specify variables
included in this paper, a brief background of those variables will be
provided, which will then segue to discussion. Variables that will be
discussed include the ASBO, its relation with social policies, and the
theoretical frameworks that will be encountered along the way. Each
discussion is hoped to bring some light on the issue and ultimately, to
bring a useful and insightful conclusion to the readers.
THE AIM OF
THIS ESSAY
The aim of a
particular paper is important to identify so as the readers will
understand why it is written. This topic is explored so as to understand
more about ASBO, specifically its pros and cons. This can be done by
evaluating how the UK society reacts to it and how they perceive its
effectiveness. Furthermore, it is also explored to identify its relation
with the different social policies governing UK. ASBO may contradict with
those policies in many ways as it is a type of punishment that can be
applied to anyone at any age. An issue such as deciding on whether or not
ASBO should be sentenced to a person is just an example of an issue that
may relate with social policies. There is more to explore by reviewing the
social policy areas and relating them with the strengths and weaknesses of
ASBO.
The following are
objectives of this paper:
1.
To explore the basics of ASBO.
2.
To read and review literatures, specifically news articles,
concerning ASBO and its implications to the society.
3.
To read and review the basics of UK social policy.
4.
To identify relevant frameworks.
5.
To unitise the
all the information reviewed to draw a useful and insightful conclusion.
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE UK
Anti-social behaviour in the UK is an old issue that is still
cannot be resolved, even earlier before Steve Jones was singing ‘Anarchy
in the UK’. Unruly behaviour is no stranger in the British culture. In a
report participated by
1,500 organisations, it was found that
66,000 reports of anti-social behaviour were made for just a day (Home
Office Development and Practice Report, 2004). It has been estimated that
this is equivalent to 13.5 million reports per year or one report every
two seconds (Home Office Development and Practice Report, 2004). The
following are the data for specific anti-social behaviour offence for just
one day: drug/substance misuse and drug dealing
(2,920); street drinking and begging (3,239);
prostitution, kerb crawling and other sexual
acts (1,011); vehicle-related nuisance and inappropriate vehicle use
(7,782); intimidation and harassment
(5,415); noise (5,374);
rowdy behaviour (5,339); nuisance behaviour
(7,660); hoax calls (1,286);
animal-related problems (2,546); abandoned vehicles (4,994); criminal
damage/vandalism (7,855); and
litter/rubbish (10,686) (Home Office Development and Practice
Report, 2004). This data, although limited as it may seem, is alarming in
a sense that that thousands of anti-social behaviour can be experienced by
an organization for only a day. This does not count yet the experiences of
individual citizens. This greatly reflects the prevalence of anti-social
acts in the UK.
In the ‘2004 5-year strategy
against crime’ speech of Prime Minister Tony Blair, he emphasized that the
high prevalence of anti-social behaviour in the UK originated from the
1960’s
liberal, social consensus on law and order (Directgov, 2004). According to
Blair, the breakthrough in terms of freedom of expression, of lifestyle,
of the individual's right to live their own personal life in the way they
choose in the 1960s, which survived and strengthened in today's generation
unfortunately produced something alongside with it – the increase of
irresponsible citizens (Directgov, 2004). By irresponsible, it means
performing anti-social acts, pestering other citizens who only wish to on
with their normal lives unbothered. The ASBO and the Anti-Social Behaviour
Act 2003 were made to make British citizens more responsible.
THE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
The Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) was introduced
by section 1 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 in England and Wales (Home Office Communication Directorate,
2003, Nacro, 2002). ASBOs can be used by local authorities and the police
against anyone, aged 10 or over, who has acted in an anti-social manner (Nacro,
2002). They are considered as civil orders that exist to shield the public
from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or
distress (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003). Under ASBOs, a
specific order includes conditions prohibiting the offender from specific
anti-social acts or entering defined areas and is effective for a minimum
of two years (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003). ASBOs are not
criminal penalties (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003). They
only become criminal penalties when they have been breached (Nacro, 2002).
People who play important
roles in the implementation of ASBO include the complainant, the local
city magistrate, and the witnesses. Stand-alone applications for ASBOs are
made to the magistrates’ court acting in its civil capacity. It involves
local people not only in the collection of evidence but also in helping to
enforce breaches. The civil nature of ASBO is that
hearsay and
professional witness evidence can be heard. This means that it still
enforces human rights as it also allows the offender to defend his or
herself in a court-like proceeding (Home Office Communication
Directorate, 2003).
The fact that ASBOs are not
considered criminal penalties may bring ambiguity to its nature. An
offender may be ordered not to do any anti-social behaviour for a period
of a few months but after that ASBO, that offender can be back into
action. Identifying breach can also be a problem as this will require a
number of credible witnesses and processing within the local government.
The maximum sentence for a breach can reach up to 5 years in prison for an
adult. On the other hand, the maximum sentence for breach by juvenile is a
detention and training order, which has a maximum term of 24 months – 12
months of which is custodial and 12 months is in the community. Proponents
of the ASBO states that the process of proceedings should be swift but
what they should look at is how the sentence can be fairly implemented.
Rawstorne (2004) stated in an article about ASBO: “residents
who have stuck their necks out to get an ASBO are left feeling let down
when the
orders are seemingly breached with impunity”. There are
examples of cases that breaches are not being taken seriously and
offenders are getting away with it. This affects the credibility of ASBO
in many ways and the worst situation is that it may ultimately lose the
trusts of the UK citizens.
Scope-wise, there is a great
list of anti-social behaviours that can be tackled by ASBO. This includes:
harassment of residents or passersby; verbal abuse; Criminal damage;
vandalism; noise nuisance; writing graffiti; engaging in threatening
behaviour in large groups; racial abuse; smoking or drinking alcohol while
under age; substance misuse; joyriding; begging; prostitution; kerb-crawling;
throwing missiles; assault; and vehicle crime (Home Office Communication
Directorate, 2003). This list shows the relationship of ASBO with social
policies. Tackling and controlling those anti-social behaviours may lead
to the welfare of the community, specifically on several areas such as
health, social security, and housing.
ASBO is further strengthened
with the legislation of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. The act’s
first eight parts deal mainly with several of UK’s social policy problems
such as drug-use, housing, parental responsibilities, dispersal of groups
in an anti-social hotspot, possession of firearms, the environment, public
order and trespass, and high ledges (Crown, 2003). This act enables the
police to to serve a
closure notice on premises that have been used for use, production or
supply of Class A drugs. Police officers
now also have the power to disperse groups of two or more persons in any
public place if their presence "has resulted, or is likely to result, in
any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or
distressed". Police should now also intervene with a public gathering of
only two persons or more instead of the minimum twenty of the previous
ASBO. It also increases the power of social landlords to take action
against tenants who cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. It also
specifies the steps that parents must take to control the behaviour of
their children and to ensure that their children are not performing
anything anti-social in nature. Possession of airgun or any imitation
weapons are also now considered an offence that UK citizens should take
note, especially the teens. Furthermore, the council also now have the
power to serve a closure order on premises causing public nuisance by
noise, as well as to serve a graffiti removal notice on the owner
of any surface where graffiti has been applied. Hedges are also now
required to be controlled and the failure to do so can lead to an ASBO
(Crown, 2003).
THE PROS
This side of the story is
pretty much easy to explain as the motivation behind the ASBO and the
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 lies within the advantages perceived by its
proponents. Based on ASBO and on the 2003 act, such actions can help UK
become a better a society, freeing peaceful citizens from irritations and
annoyances caused by unruly neighbors. Those who are victimized often by
unruly people or gangs now have voices to shout out. Anti-social people
can now be controlled through punishment threats.
A particular charity in the
UK known as Nacro (2002) reasoned that theories such as the ‘contagion
theories’ and ‘broken windows theory’ explain why there is a need to
control anti-social behaviour with an iron hand. The ‘contagion theory’
explains that the ‘presence of vandalism stimulates more vandalism’ (Skogan,
1990). Nacro (2002) stated that this is supported by many studies which
found that the presence of anti-social behaviour such as vandalism,
rubbish or criminal damage ultimately leads directly to more antisocial
behaviour. Almost similarly, the ‘broken windows theory’ explains that
deteriorations within a community leave the impression to community
members that “nobody cares so apprehension is less likely” and “The area
is already untidy so one more act will go unnoticed”. Thus, providing the
community with the ASBO is seen to lessen the numbers of deteriorations
such as broken windows, graffiti, etc and also strikes fear to unruly
citizens making them less likely imitate a particular anti-social
behaviour.
The ASBO is also seen as the
way to decrease the inhibitions within communities. Anti-social behaviour
inhibits fear to community citizens as it affects their individual
progress and welfare. With ASBO, citizens will be encouraged to take steps
and end their nightmare or in Tony Blair’s term - ‘hell’.
ASBO also promises to
eliminate the cost of anti-social behaviour. Nacro (2002) explains that it
can undermine stability and confidence in an area’s housing market, and
can also affect the success of local businesses and can be costly (in
terms of human and financial resources) to repair. This shows the
relevance of the program with the housing and financial welfare of the
citizens. Through ASBO, financial loss can be prevented in the long-run
because facility and reputation damage.
ASBO may also likely decrease
drug-use in schools and gang wars on the streets. Teens will now have
second thoughts on whether they will bring drugs at school when police and
sniffing dogs are always around. Gangs may also now have difficulty
walking or gathering in groups on the streets. This will make the lives of
the citizens safer and more convenient. In this term, it can be said that
ASBO is related to safety in a sense that its implementation can lead to
the decrease of activities that makes people feel unsecured. Safety within
the community is one of the most important areas of social policy that the
government needs to address.
In a sense, ASBO can also be
considered educational as it educates the public which behaviours are
accepted by the society and which behaviours are considered unruly or
destructive to fellow citizens. Early in their lives, children will
recognize what is right from wrong. They will be forced to stray away from
anti-social acts because they know that a certain punishment awaits those
who are proven anti-social. They will also be familiarized with
anti-social behavior that they should avoid.
THE
CONS
Despite the long list of anti-social
behaviour that ASBO addresses, there are still many issues that its
proponents and instigators should look into, specifically in the legal and
humanitarian side.
In the humanitarian side for instance,
while ASBO can lead to welfare, it may also destroy welfare in a sense
that it is being wrongly applied to vulnerable people such as children,
drug users, prostitutes and the mentally ill (Cummings, 2005). On the
other hand, in the legal side, it may contradict to other social policy
areas such as safety, as Sims (2004) noted. Sims (2004) explained that
because cycling is prohibited in the pavement because it is considered as
an anti-social behaviour, those who do it for safety are forced to cycle
on the road – a type of thing they never get used to do. Sims (2004)
stated: "A lot of pavement cyclists have good
reasons. They shouldn't be forced to choose between illegality and looking
after themselves. Such issues often seem like an outrageous infringement
of civil liberties." In other words, ASBO is confusing in a sense that it
cannot define exactly what it prohibits and what it allows. An ASBO
sentence can be issued with just few hearsay evidences because of its
failure to define anti-social behaviour, and the lack of appropriate
measures to exclude certain type of actions that may not be anti-social if
analyzed deeply.
Another negative humanitarian
implication that has been strongly stated is the impact of ASBO on
children. For example, ASBO prohibit children using certain words, wearing
certain clothes, and banning them from congregating in certain areas (Statewatch
News online, 2004). Police and sniffing dogs are actively disseminated in
schools for drug-checks, but this seems to be uncomfortable to children. A
Kent police survey found that some children felt they had been lied to
about the bag searches, and uncomfortable around the dogs (Statewatch News
online, 2004).
Misapplication of ASBO can
also occur frequently especially to people who are just practicing their
freedom. Take for example this case: “…protestors gathered at Caterpillar
construction company's offices in Solihull to demonstrate, as they had on
previous occasions, at their continued sale of bulldozers to Israel. This
time eight out of the 11 protestors were arrested under ASBOs” (StateWatch
News, 2004). Another case was: “a man who has campaigned against the
council over issues such as health and safety and corruption, was served
with an ASBO” (StateWatch News, 2004). This shows that ASBO criminalizes
non-criminal offences, putting innocent people to jail (Cummings, 2005).
ASBO can also demoralize a
person served with it, as well as that person’s family, because one of its
attached punishments is to shame that person by issuing public notices in
newspapers. A mother who has a son named Ruell served with an ASBO said:
"Now,
if people are complaining about kids in the neighbourhood the police come
straight to my house. It's been hard on us…” (Raymond and Fletcher, 2005).
The fact that Ruell is also a mixed-race child can also stir
discrimination ideas for both sides. Another question is how can the
government ensure that they issuing ASBOs to the right person? It shows
that there are not enough criteria to determine who should get an ASBO.
For instance, that mother also recalled that the doctors told her that her
son have ADHD, a psychological disorder (Raymond and Fletcher, 2005). Can
these conditions count as liable for ASBO? Other cases show a no
consideration at all to people who really need help like prostitutes and
drug addicts. Instead of funding rehabilitation centres and educational
programs, ASBO simply bans those individuals from the things they have
been addicted into. It is ridiculous to ban addiction or a way of life,
because they have been deeply embedded to that person’s life.
ASBO – A ‘GOOD’ SOCIAL POLICY?
Although the government is somewhat
correct that anti-social behaviour problems are old-age problems that
should be addressed with tough hands, it is obvious that the issue has
just been overtly politicized without much consideration on other factors
that may affect ‘good relations’ among the citizens and participation in
public meetings. As Cummings (2005) stated: “For
the political class, however, 'antisocial behaviour' calls for nothing
less than a transformation of the relationship between the citizen and the
state”. It ignores many important issues such as deep-rooted psychological
and sociological problems. Instead of unitising people and promoting good
relations, the politics of ASBO divides the society even further into
confusion.
ASBO can perhaps be
considered as a hybrid form of institutional racism policies. Policies of
institutional racism such as “encourages authorities to solve the problem
by changing people’s attitudes and behaviour” and “assumes that every
stranger is a potential racist who may even be unaware of his/her
prejudice, and therefore needs to be monitored by an authority” (Mirza,
2004) can also be reflected in ASBO. ASBO, as a social policy to improve
citizens’ lives, tries to change people’s attitude toward anti-social
behaviour. This may be good in nature as people will learn to act and
cooperate with the government, but damaging nonetheless because it
discriminates those persons served with ASBO. Also, anyone from 10 years
old onwards can receive an ASBO. ASBO is a creeping new form of
institutional racism because it promotes anxiety and discrimination rather
than unity and cooperation among citizens.
Mirza (2004) recommended a
policy to resist all calls for further restriction of free speech. Mirza
(2004) further stated that we should defend people’s freedom to believe
whatever they choose, without intrusion or correction by government. The
rationale for these recommendations is that society can only progress when
people are enlightened about what society really stands for. ASBO does not
enlighten, but instead promote ambiguity to British people on how they
want their society to be. People are just diverse in nature (Mirza, 2004)
and implementing a policy that is poorly defined and categorized may
backfire because it lacks the capability to address diversity as it should
be.
ASBO seems to be based on the
enlightenment model of policy making as anti-social behaviour acts have
increased considerably in the UK over the years. However, given that ASBO
has a colorful political background justifiably neglects that idea. In the
political model of policy-making, it is argued that different groups,
different interests and different ends are all involved in the policy
process (Carlisle, 2002). Cummings (2005) argued that “politicians
have not invented antisocial behaviour out of nothing, but they have
popularised a vocabulary and developed a quasi-legal framework that
encourage people to interpret certain kinds of behaviour in a particular
way”. The fuss about anti-social behaviour started from the government
although there were many complains about such behaviours in the past. But
the point it, this issue is not as serious as the issues of poverty,
health, racism and education. People can deal with anti-social behaviour
themselves. If they are well-educated, they can communicate with the
person bothering them. If no progress were made, then they can call the
police. Taking an issue like this into political mainstream indicates many
agendas that may be worth finding. Sure, anti-social behaviour is a
nationwide problem that should be addressed. But policy-makers should also
consider its potential impact, not just on the problem that the policy
targets to address, but also on the different contexts that it can affect
along the way, such as inequality, contradiction with other policies such
as in safety and health, etc.
Schneider (1999) defined good public policy as “policy
that adds positive values to
the society, to the lives of people in
it, and to the future conditions of democracy”. For
Schneider, a successful one is one that has produced more positive values
for target populations or the society as a whole than some alternative
implementation would have produced. Now the question is – does ASBO
produce positive values? Maybe so, but the weakness of the values it
produce lies on the fact that values are being forced, rather than
embedded within the citizens. As a policy to stop anti-social behaviour,
ASBO eliminates negative values and promotes positive ones by ordering
citizens to act in manners that they only allow. However, because this is
policy is based on force rather than taught and explained to the citizens,
the effect may be less successful. For instance, one cannot just tell a
drug addict to stop using drugs with an ASBO. Such people should be put
under rehabilitation, educated about the use of drugs, and so on.
Another fault of the ASBO is that its standard is obviously
based on compliance. Schneider (1999) explained that this not good for a
number of reasons. Schneider (1999) argues that “a
focus on compliance directs attention
away from the use of discretion,
even though wise
choices in discretionary decision making
may have far
more to do with the policy’s impact on
society”. This may be used as an effective rationale on why ridiculous
ASBOs are being given to undeserving individuals. Because the priority of
officials is to comply, they fail to see the obvious and they fail to
examine the situations and practice discretion. As Schneider (1999) also
puts it: “compliance does not take into account the creative ways that
agency officials may try to adapt the statute to fit into the local value
context”. Thus, compliance is important, but it should not be set as the
standard. What policy makers should do is that they should make the ASBO
flexible in a sense that it will be continuously assessed for
improvements. The reason why compliance is the main focus of this policy
may be traced from the power gap between the central and the local
government. There has been a recent move to strengthen the relationship
between central and local and this may be the driving force on why local
officials are greatly complying with ASBO. Of course, as mentioned,
another problem of the local authorities is their incapability to define
what anti-social behaviour is. As a result anti-social behaviour is being
greatly generalized.
CONCLUSION
ASBO, as a social policy,
needs further assessments and improvements in order for it to fit with the
British and Welsh society. Although this policy has a potential to
decrease anti-social acts in the UK, there are certain issues that policy
makers have overlooked. The first problem is the lack of coherent and
specific definition of anti-social behaviour. Because the term is vague,
misapplications of ASBOs are prevalent, humiliating its proponents. There
should a more specific way to categorise anti-social behaviour, including
the developments of special-case exemptions. As a social policy, ASBO also
fails to produce any positive values. It is perhaps because it develops
from the political theory of policy. It is a haphazard attempt to satisfy
the country’s demand for safety, driven by unknown but obvious political
agendas. However, the social structure and good relations among people is
being sacrificed as can be seen by the implications of ASBO. People with
ASBOs are being seen with contempt and discrimination, which should not be
the case as instead of building that person’s personality and confidence,
shame shatters them completely. That is why ASBO should never be taken as
is and should be explored further in terms of psychological and
sociological effects. It should also be explored in terms of its legal
aspects, specifically on certain points to which it can contradict with
other social policies.
|
