Introduction

This chapter has two aims. One is to establish if there is such a thing as a culture of public protection and the other is to determine if this will impact upon the working practices of those involved in Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). A brief review of recent penal trends will set the context for the growth in public protection processes and cultures. This will then suggest ways in which criminal justice agencies, and key decisions, are affected by an increasingly risk-averse agenda. If it is accepted that public protection policies have brought about changes in criminal justice cultures then consideration needs to be given to their possible impact upon a discrete and well-established culture that aims to put the needs and welfare of young people first.

The background to a cultural transformation?

It is unlikely that many would argue with the view that penal policy has become increasingly punitive since the election of the Labour government in 1997. This punitiveness has taken on several guises but is typified as follows: longer sentencing, mandatory sentences, the use of civil measures to restrain and contain those who offend in the community, the criminalisation of antisocial behaviour, restricted release arrangements and a focus on compliance and enforcement (see for example Dunbar and Langdon, 1998; James and Raine, 1998; Matthews and Young, 2003; Tonry, 2004; Hughes, 2007). One aspect above all has perhaps driven this agenda and that is protecting the public from potentially dangerous people who offend. The initial thrust of this agenda was focused upon sex offenders with the creation of the sex offender register in the 1997 Sex Offenders Act. Because immediate loopholes were spotted in the legislation (those whose sentences ended before the register was created, and were therefore not eligible for registration), civil restraints were invoked under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act in the form of sex offender orders. In essence, these orders introduced the idea of, in effect, punishing people for something they might do in the future. If a person had a previous history of sexual offending and was placing himself in a position of potential harm to others, he could be prevented from doing any number of things to reduce the potential risk. Elsewhere, this focus upon risk prevention or management had been backed up by the formal establishment of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) in the 2000 Criminal Justice Court Services Act.