Juvenile Offenders And Juvenile Justice System Criminology Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Juvenile (or youth) offenders and juvenile justice system has been a subject matter of varied experiments in the hands of incoherent legal principles and governmental policies. It may be one reason for Juvenile justice systems for not proceeding in realistic, coherent and practical ways. The early juvenile or youth justice movement was based on the idea of rehabilitation, rather than deterrence and retribution. It was characterised by individualized treatment of offenders, indeterminacy of sentences and broad discretion by judges (Sullivan, 2007). Treatment of children, who are victims of the conditions in which they are living and children who have violated the law, is a reflection of a society's culture and value system. This treatment is a society's vision of children and youth and its view on how to socialize and educate children (Junger-Tas, 2006).

The beginning of 1990 saw widespread public concern over frequent offending and reoffending by young offenders. These events altered the existing juvenile justice system. Criminal justice Act, 1991 moved towards "just deserts" approach. The new legislation, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994 introduced stiffer penalties for juvenile offenders, including long term detention for 10-13 year olds, similar was done in section 53 of the Children and Young Person's Act, 1993. These developments resulted in a substantial rise in juvenile custodial population and punitive responses to offending by children and young people (Graham and Moore, 2006). Faith in rehabilitative services was also lost as they proved inadequate and ineffective; they finally degenerated into youth prisons and suffered from constant overcrowding, large dormitories, strict work schedules, rigid discipline and punishment, and very little real education (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008). The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 section 37 " provided prevention of offending by children and young persons as a principal aim to the youth justice system and to all persons and bodies carrying out functions in relation to youth justice system" (Crime and Disorder Act 1998). Further, it has set up a Youth Justice Board for the operation of the youth justice system and for the provision of youth justice services (Sections 41-42). The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is an executive non-departmental public body, established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,End Match  to oversee the development and management of the reformed youth justice system (Section 41,). The Youth justice SystemEnd Match is defined in section 42(1) Begin Match to source 33 in source list: (5-2-03) http://www.awcebd.co.uk/events2k/ohps.htmas "the system of criminal justice in so far as it relates to children and young persons".

TheEnd MatchYouth Justice Board manage the youth justice system in England and Wales and work to prevent offending, to ensure that custody for them is safe and secure, and to address the causes of offending. Where a child has begun to offend, they are entitled to the earliest possible intervention to address that offending behaviour and eliminate its causes (UK Government, 1999). The Youth Justice Board facilitates various educational, training, employment and health related programmes (Pitcher et al. 2004). Such programmes has been promoted for the fulfilling the requirement of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It also involved local authorities in youth justice system and has created Youth Offending Teams (YOT's) to provide a holistic approach to youth justice delivery system (Sections 38-39).

This essay attempts to examine the aims and measures of the Youth Justice Board and argues that in the current phase of juvenile justice system, youth justice board has an important and additional responsibility of prioritizing public protection from youth offenders besides contribution to youth justice. The first part of essay is Introduction; the second part defines the juvenile justice system and discusses the development and phases of juvenile justice system; the third part analyzes the need and working of youth justice board in the current phase of youth justice system and the measures adopted by it to prevent offending and re-offending by children and young people; the fourth part, critically evaluates the measures adopted by youth justice board; the last part is the conclusion.

The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990 rule 11(a) defines a juvenile as 'every person under the age of 18' (UN rules, 1990). Similarly the Council of Europe 2003, Recommendation 1 defines Juveniles as 'persons who have reached the age of criminal responsibility but not the age of majority' (Council of Europe, 2003). The juvenile justice system is a formal system that is part of a wide approach to delinquency, including the police, the prosecutor system, the probation system, and youth institutions, but also agencies such as health, education and social welfare (Council of Europe (Rec. 2003, 20).

Development and Phases of Juvenile Justice System-

Juvenile offender as an object of welfare-

Prior to the creation of the juvenile or youth justice system, children often served long sentences alongside hardened adult criminals. Community's responsibility for deprived and delinquent children emerged in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the 18th and 19th centuries corporal punishment was increasingly seen as morally wrong and as ineffective reformative measure. Early reformers argued that society's duty was not to confine youth, but rather to save them from a downward career, and demanded change. Juvenile justice policy thus formed, focused on diverting young offenders from the criminal justice system as far as possible (Morris and Giller, 1987). Unlike adult criminal court, the early juvenile or youth justice movement was based on the idea of rehabilitation, rather than deterrence and retribution. The goal of the juvenile court was to treat, supervise, and rehabilitate juvenile defendants under the belief that juveniles were less blameworthy and less morally culpable for their actions than adults. Some of the key rehabilitative ideas on which the system was founded include: individualized treatment of offenders, indeterminacy of sentences and broad discretion by judges (Sullivan, 2007). While most countries agreed that a separate court system for juveniles is necessary, each differed in the manner of operation and varies in how they define juveniles, what crimes warrant trials in adult court, and what methods of punishment may be used (Mack, 1909). The welfare philosophy had strong influence in juvenile justice system till 1970's but the influence gradually faded primarily due to ineffectiveness of juvenile homes in reducing juvenile delinquency. Juvenile homes proved ineffective due to lack of resources, conditions similar to confinement and thus teens were more susceptible to depression, stress-related illnesses, self-harm and suicide. It was found detention in juvenile homes also leaves children vulnerable to abuse from peers and staff. Excessive force in juvenile detention centres has been documented in various countries in reports by organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the ACLU (Pattison, 1998). Another lacuna in the system was that the child and his parents remained powerless objects in the hands of paternalistic and patronizing judges (Junger-Tas, 2006). Due to above reasons, in practice the welfare approach could not curtail re-offending and public fear from persistent juvenile offenders.

Juvenile offender as a responsible and rational being-

After the end of World War II and with the increase in prosperity, higher levels of education, technological change, emancipation of youth, the child 'welfare system' became obsolete. Neither parents nor adolescents accepted the absolute authority of paternalistic judge over the lives of children. The juvenile justice system also imbibed the principles of just dessert, proportionality and equality in a process to achieve a fairer and more just sentencing policy. The beginning of 1990 witnessed frustration on criminal justice interventions for juveniles due to continuation of the upward trend in crime as measured by the British Crime Survey: some well-publicised urban disturbances involving young people (Campbell, 1993); police and official preoccupation with 'persistent juvenile offenders' (Hagell and Newburn, 1994); and New Labour's ambitions to replace the Conservatives as the natural party of 'law and order' (Downes and Morgan, 2002). Criminal justice Act, 1991 moved towards "just deserts" approach. Events of February, 1993 drove public concern into public panic, the abduction and murder of a young child James Bulger, by two 10 year old boys, shocked England and there was demand to 'curb the delinquent tendencies of the new generation of ever younger and increasingly persistent offenders' (Graham & Moore, 2006).

The analytical catalyst that provided the foundations for Labour's youth justice policy when returned to government was an Audit Commission report: Misspent Youth (1996). This was translated into a White Paper, No More Excuses (Home Office, 1997), which bore a striking resemblance to New Labour's pre- Election proposals for Tackling Youth Crime (Labour Party, 1996). The new legislation, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994 introduced stiffer penalties for juvenile offenders, included long term detention for 10-13 year olds as in section 53 of the Children and Young Person's Act, 1993. These developments resulted in a substantial rise in juvenile custodial population and punitive responses to offending by children and young people (Graham & Moore, 2006). The Crime and Disorder Act made children at the age of 10 accountable for their acts and thus abolished the principal of doli incapax according which child under 14 was held incapable of doing evil things. New preventive interventions for young children were introduced by instruments such as Child Safety Order, Child Curfews and the Parenting Order. In addition, children aged 10-16 could be placed in pre trial detention and a new Detention and Training Order (DTO) may be imposed on delinquents aged 15-17 as well on 'persistent delinquents' aged 10 and 11. This made sentencing framework for juvenile delinquents similar to those of adult offenders. Thus, there was need for a separate youth justice system, juveniles were treated worse in the juvenile justice system than in adult system and it was impossible to determine at what age children must be considered accountable for their act (Junger-Tas, 2006).

3) Establishment of specialised juvenile justice bodies such as Youth Justice Board-

The reversal of trend from welfare to punitive measures in the juvenile justice system was met with criticism from international organisations which emphasized the need for differential treatment of children as compared to adults. It was argued that juvenile offenders need a special system which takes into account the differences between children and adults, in particular their age and immaturity. According to a Judge, 'children are developmentally different from adults; they are developing emotionally and cognitively; they are impressionable; and they have different levels of understanding than adults' (Smith, 2008). To meet criticism of repressive juvenile justice system, in the last decade of 20th century, Youth Justice Board (YJB) were formed to aid the juvenile justice system and to find out more humane ways to prevent juvenile delinquency and deal with young offenders (Junger-Tas, 2006). Further, it came to be realized that detaining youth is severely problematic for three main reasons: 1) detention is detrimental to the child; 2) a disproportionate number of minority youth are confined; and 3) detention results in high costs without increasing public safety (Gaudio, 2010). Education researchers have found that upwards of forty percent of incarcerated youth have a learning disability, and they will face significant challenges returning to school after they leave detention' (Bunch, 2004; U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, 2003). Thus, de-institutionalization measures for non-violent youth offenders were considered as detention alternatives, which reduce incarceration and its detrimental effects on children (Gaudio, 2010).

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) and the Measures Adopted-

Section 41 of Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created Youth Justice Board in the year 1998. The objective was to promote and oversee reforms in the youth justice system and preventing offending, reducing re-offending, increasing victim and public confidence and ensuring the safe and effective use of custody (U.K Home Office, 1997). In April 2000, the Youth Justice Board was given the additional statutory functions of commissioner and purchaser of custodial places and to exercise general operational oversight of the secure estate (Bradford & Morgan, 2005). Youth Justice Board has substantial powers to oversee improvements, to hold local authorities and providers of custodial and community sentences accountable for their part. Reforms were introduced in the functioning of Youth Justice Board as a concomitant result of Audit Commission's Report of 1996 and 2004 (Audit Commission, 1996, 2004).

Youth Justice Board started adapting to the changed approach, taking responsibilities, providing leadership and direction to the juvenile justice system. In order to prevent an individual child or young person from offending and re-offending YJB took the following -

The YJB established and funded " Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)," whose work was unrelated to that in the pilot areas established under the "old regime," for reform and evaluation of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (Bottoms & Dignan, 2004). YOTs have been prepared for effective implementation of its objectives; the YJB is responsible for monitoring the activities of YOT until very recently YOTs were not liable to any other form of inspection, though it had originally been suggested that they should be (Leng, et al, 1998). YOTs work as multi-agency teams in multi-agency approaches (Wyvekens, 2006; All Party Parliamentary Local Government Group and the Local Government Information Unit, 2009). The teams bring together different agencies including Police, Probation, Health, Education and Social Services to work with young offenders and their families and assist the courts in their decision-making (Wright, 2008). There are currently 157 multi agency YOTs in England and Wales according to a review of Youth Justice Board's Governance and Operating Arrangements (Anon, 2010). Formerly YOTs were the core for agencies to come together for working for young people at risk of crime, now all local partners collaborate at a strategic level in Children's Trusts and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) which is a statutory imitative. Where a final warning is to be issued to an offender, the case is to be referred to the local youth offending team by the police. Moreover, the clear expectation in the official Home Office guidance that accompanied the national implementation of the new youth justice system was that virtually all offenders in receipt of a final warning would be expected to participate in a change program of this sort (Home Office 2000a). The principal duty of the YOTs is to coordinate and provide youth justice services to each and every child in need. Its duty is to carry out functions assigned to the team by the local youth justice plan (Bottoms & Dignan, 2004). The youth offending team will draw up a detailed rehabilitation program whose overriding objective will be to prevent re-offending by addressing the causes of the young person's offending behaviour (Great Britain Home Office, 2000).

Preventive activity programmes have been initiated for working with young people at risk of getting involved in crime through Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs). In 2000, the YIP's introduced, for children between 8 to 17-year-olds, who are at high risk of involvement in offending or anti-social behaviour, with aimEnd Matchto mitigate crime Recently, Junior YIPs have been established which aim to reduce social seclusion, offending and other adverse outcomes among a target group of 8-12 year olds identified as being high risks (Graham and Moore, 2006). The programme carried out in 110 of the most high crime areas in England and WalesEnd Match (Home Office).Young people on the YIP's identified through a number of different agencies including youth offending teams (YOTs), police, social services, local education authorities or schools, and other local agencies. The programme gives young people a safe place to go where they can learn new skills, take part in activities and getEnd Match guidance in relation to their education and career. The board has also established a variety of other crime prevention initiatives, including "splash" schemes to provide activities for young people during school holidays and "positive futures" programs that are designed to use sport to divert young people from crime (Bottoms & Dignan, 2004).

Standards and arrangements are being developed so that young people are kept separate from adults. Significant improvements are being made in the quality of secure accommodation and improving the experience of young people there (Anon, 2010). New facilities are being commissioned including dedicated girls' units and separate provisions for more vulnerable young people. YJB is making significant investment in the area of education and substance misuse services (Anon, 2010; U.K Home Office, 2008; Hazel, 2008). Reparation, in addition to the primary aim of prevention, the new youth justice system has, from its inception, sought to ensure that, as Straw and Michael (1996, p. 12) put it, "Greater attention should be given ... to ensuring an element of reparation in sentencing and enabling young offenders to understand the harm done to victims and communities.". The Youth Justice Board is making available training for police officers, YOT workers, and others to facilitate restorative warnings and conferences (Bottoms & Dignan, 2004).

The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales review restorative justice as enabling 'offenders and victims to communicate and agree on how the harm caused by offending behaviour is to be repaired' (Bitel, 2005).The Youth Justice Board along with Department for Education and Skills have been working together to try 'restorative justice' in schools (McCluskey, et al, 2008). The Youth Justice Board of England and Wales, recently reported on a pilot initiative in which youth offending teams worked with 20 secondary and 6 primary schools in England and Wales (Bitel, 2005). The aims of the initiative were to reduce offending, bullying and victimisation and to improve attendance.

Placement services are being arranged for young people remanded or sentenced to custody. Efforts are being directed for setting up and promoting importance of a distinct youth strand of the criminal justice system. A range of new youth justice services have been introduced including prevention programmes and intensive community programmes for more serious and persistent young offenders. A committed team is being developed in the field of front line practitioners with improved youth justice training and development opportunities.

Partnerships at national and local level are being developed to better prevent and respond to youth crime. Local authorities are required to identify, refer and track children at risk. Programmes have been formulated to target a wider population of children at risk and to find out why young people get involved in crime for example-. Connexions, Youth Inclusion Support Panels (YISPs), Safer School Partnerships (SSPs), Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs). There is focus on supporting parents in parenting and on other issues including domestic violence, counselling, family support, health awareness etc. (Graham and Moore, 2006).

A partnership project between the YJB and Connexions 'Keeping Young People Engaged' (KYPE) was started. KYPE was intended to support the existing capabilities of youth offending teams (YOTs) to provide relevant education, training and employment (ETE) services for all young offenders, particularly for individuals subject to Detention and Training Orders (DTOs) and those serving community sentences of Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programmes (ISSPs) (Cooper, et al, 2007). In the PLUS Strategy, an art-based element has been included for young people in custody by the Youth Justice Board's (Arts Council England, March 2005). The National Specification for Learning and Skills for young people on a DTO, promotes arts provision for young people in custody, particularly as part of an extra-curricular enrichment programme (Youth Justice Board, 2002). In summer 2002, Art Council England helped to deliver the YJB's Splash Extra programme. This programme delivered holiday schemes in a number of high-crime estates targeted at young people aged 9-17 at risk of committing crime, these schemes included arts activities such as music, dance, drama and art and craft (Arts Council England, 2003b).

A joint initiative between the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), the Youth Justice Board and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) for Safer Schools Partnerships has been carried out. They have placed police officers in schools and in those areas where high levels of street crime takes place. Its aim is to reduce victimisation, criminality, ensure the full-time education of young offender and create a safer environment for children to learn (McCarthy, 2004). Dwyer (n.d) has suggested 'the first step is a caring school responsive to all students', that schools and agencies working together can prevent dangerous problematic behaviour, reducing human tragedies and the long-term costs of crime.

Critical Evaluation of the Measures Adopted by Youth Justice Board-

The Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 introduced a new single statutory aim for the juvenile justice system and that was to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people. This was a path between the 'welfare' and 'justice' phase and unified the practitioners towards a common and shared purpose (Graham and Moore, 2006). The history of juvenile justice system gives Youth Justice Board additional responsibility of prioritizing public protection from youth offenders besides contribution to youth justice, improve performance, and set plans, targets, measure performance and review progress. The preventive services seek to address the risk factors facing children, maximise access to protective experiences and opportunities, and thus establish a stable foundation from which the young people can develop (Graham and Moore, 2006).

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) adopts a risk and resiliency framework, aiming to reduce the risk of offending by young people and to enhance resiliency by altering individual young people's responses to their environment and improving environmental factors which lead to offending (Hughes, 2004) Audit Commission (2004) reviewed the measures and reported that as a result of measures young offenders are dealt with more quickly and juveniles more often receive intervention, one third of offenders have to pay damages or work for victims (Reparation Order), reconviction rates after a Reprimand or Final Warning are 7-10% lower than predicted, Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes (ISSPs) have proven to be a considerably more constructive and cheaper option for persistent delinquents than stay in a institution for six months. Magistrates are satisfied with services received from Youth Offending Teams, which make pre sentence reports and appear at trials and assist judges, execute ISSPs and suggest alternative sanctions (Audit Commission, 2004). Creation of Youth Offending Teams for pre sentence reports and for intervention at every stage of the process is a innovative step for speeding up procedures and for close supervisions on juveniles who have been awarded penal measures. Another useful innovation for first offenders is Youth Panels which works with juveniles and parents. The measures adopted by Youth Justice Board are pragmatic, rational, consistent and gradual which better juvenile justice interventions. Even various programmes introduced by YJB like splash programme, mentoring, KYPE and art-based programmes provides opportunities for Yot workers to build more effective relationships with young people, and often results in dealing with obscured problems relating to offending behaviour that could only be addressed through ongoing work (Hughes, 2004). In addition, self-reports from participants indicated that participation led to increased awareness of thoughts, feelings and decision-making regarding offending; increased awareness of the personal costs of offending; increased awareness of the impact of offending on victims and the wider community and of the involvement of peers in offending (Hughes, 2003b). The number of young people entering the criminal justice system dropped for the first time and a fall in the rate of reoffending by nearly a quarter since 2000 been observed (YJB, 2010).

The Audit Commission (2004) also noted certain negative findings, on the working of Youth Justice Board. It noted that though youth crime has stabilized public awareness about youth reforms and confidence in juvenile justice system is low. Still many petty offences were brought before the Court and contact time of social workers in the system remained only about one hour per week. Minority juvenile delinquents (especially blacks) were more often placed in pre trial detention and get more custodial sentence than white juveniles. Even though YJB has been recognised as a powerful change agent, the confidence of the public has not improved at the same rate, the number of young people in custody is high and re-offending rates remain a cause for concern (Gray, 2007). The evaluation of Splash 2001 indicated that many young people taking part in activities might not have been those most 'at risk' of offending anyway, because the initiative did not successfully link with organisations working with young people most at risk (Loxley et al, 2002).

Concerns that have been raised regarding the programmes of YJB, though they include the principle of inclusion, yet they are potentially divisive, stigmatise participants as an apparent threat or as someone who deviates from normative expectations. Moreover, the programmes suffer from limited resources and to be really effective prevention needs to be incorporated into mainstream public services for juveniles. The tracking, identifying and sharing of information about children at risk amounts to labelling and stigmatising children and thus violates Article 3 of UN Convention on the Rights of Child (Graham and Moore, 2006). There was limited evidence to show that Splash schemes reduced youth related incidents reported to the police in the short term. However, in the current study, no assessment has been possible of any longer term crime reduction effects that might result from the opportunity of youth workers building relationships with the young people at risk of offending (Loxley et al, 2002).

The YJB needs to strengthen its relationship with local services beyond YOTs. It must work closely with local authority children's services. It needs to be well placed to provide expert and trusted advice to Ministers. YJB is currently jointly sponsored by the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), through its sponsor unit, the Joint Youth Justice Unit (JYJU), it must also look towards playing a greater role with the Home Office. YJB needs to reach out to public to make known its role in protecting the public from youth crime and thus increasing confidence amongst the public. A recent study has well laid down certain concrete suggestions for YJB, some of the pertinent recommendations are as under (Anon. 2010)-

Sronger relationships with local partners, Home Office and with any machinery of government with an interest to join need to be established by the YJB.

It should provide clear leadership, strategic approach, separate budget and cost effective interventions for addressing offending, reoffending, programmes in custody and public protection in the community to YOT's.

YJB board should fill vacancies with members from more varied backgrounds, for example marketing, communications, finance and governance. YJB needs to further emphasise and publicise its role in protecting the public from youth crime and must have stronger communication to develop public confidence.

To reduce reoffending the lead professional approach should be introduced especially that every young person at risk should have a single, trusted individual to turn to. Joint Youth Justice Unit (JYJU) and YJB should have clarity and mutual understanding about the respective roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.


Janice O'Mahony aptly states, "Children in conflict with the law deserve to be given a chance to change... Change is best fostered by keeping kids close to home, enrolled in school, and whenever possible, out of costly, harmful, and unnecessary placement in locked detention" (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008). Reasons for the rise in prison population of juveniles are difficult to identify, however, the panic generated during the 1990's by a perceived rise in juvenile crime and persistent juvenile offending was used by politicians and others to justify more punitive responses to juvenile crime and extension of use of custody to lower age groups. The YJB has a leading role to play to increase public confidence in humane measures, halt the continuing trend of incarceration of more and more young offenders. The measures adopted by Youth Justice Board must aid in recognizing the fact that juvenile justice system should remain fundamentally different from adult criminal justice system. The current measures of the Youth Justice Board promote diminished responsibility, proportionality and room for reforms for the juvenile justice system. The measures do put forth the fact that children are less culpable than adults and lack sufficient cognitive abilities to understand their acts and consequences. The measures include juveniles even at the age of 14 -16 which suggests that Board believes that juveniles at that age may be incapable of grasping the full meaning of their actions.

Board is aiding magistrates by suggesting mitigating factors and rehabilitation in punishments and is working towards prevention of offending and re-offending and re-socializing and reintegration of offenders which is a correct approach. The Youth Justice Board has provided funding for programmes which include bail supervision, support projects for young people, mentoring schemes, drug and alcohol programmes, education and training schemes, reparation schemes, and programmes demonstrating, to parents, better ways of dealing with children in trouble (McCarthy, 2004).

For the future, YJB must guard itself so that with time, juvenile corrections facilities intended to provide in-house rehabilitative services do not prove inadequate and ineffective due to overcrowding and the institution does not degenerate into overcrowded youth prisons with strict work schedules, rigid discipline and punishment, and very little real education. The reasons for failure of welfare model was hastened by the failure of juvenile detention facilities which lacked adequate bed space, health care and security besides limited resources and as a result the rehabilitation measures proved ineffective or nonexistent. As the Annie E. Casey Foundation points out, 'the consequences have been both disturbing and costly: our juvenile justice systems have become littered with poorly conceived strategies that often increase crime, endanger young people and damage their future prospects, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and violate our deepest held principles about equal justice under the law' (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008). The work YJB, for example, crosses over prevention and intervention categories, while the process of rehabilitation itself is clearly often cyclical rather than linear (with a majority of offenders currently re-entering the system at various points) (Hughes, 2004).

YJB has a big role to ensure that juvenile justice system does not again become a subject matter of varied experiments in the hands of incoherent legal principles and governmental policies like in the past. The YJB for achieving the aims provide new programmes and schemes which are restrictive, punitive, and controlling, which might have negative impact or might be appreciated by the offender, that they are being 'saved' from a life of depravity (Piper, 1999).