Not the right way to care
Public safety, and drunken, yobbish and antisocial behaviour are obviously public concerns and ones which politicians, the law and the police need to address. However the recent suggestion by the Chief Constable of Cheshire Police, Peter Fahy, (speaking in the aftermath of the killing of Garry Newlove, a 47-year-old father of three, apparently after confronting young vandals) that underage drinkers whose parents do not deal with the issue should be taken into care, is entirely wrong.
Taking children into care should always be an option of last resort. If the child is subject to serious physical harm or neglect, or sexual abuse, or in some circumstances is totally out of control than care is likely to be appropriate. However save in the most extreme circumstancesa a child going into care is unlikely to see irresponsible behaviour improved by that. It will not prevent drinking, nor is likely to prevent further antisocial acts. The essential impact of the Chief Constable's suggestion would be by way of threat. The aim being to galvanise parents into action for fear of losing their children. Usually however even a very poor parent is better than no parent at all. Law and order problems require law and order solutions. The problem should not be dumped on social services just to make a point.
As it happens the specific means to deal with antisocial behaviour already exists. Antisocial behaviour orders, or "Asbos". Ironically the Sentencing Advisory Panel (an independent body originally set up to provide advice to the Court of Appeal, when it issued sentencing guidelines, now after consultation providing advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council) has recently in broad terms recommended lower sentences for breach of Asbos. The proposals would mean that for under-18s, the maximum punishment for a serious breach of an Asbo would be one year. (Half the present maximum). This at a time when there is evidence that most Asbos which are imposed are breached and only a very small proportion ever receive a custodial sentence for breach (however brief).
It would be far better for there to be fewer Asbos and for those which are obtained to be implemented rigorously. Disrespect for any form of court order is unacceptable. Whilst there has been much talk of delinquents treating having an Asbo as a badge of status, that is only likely to be worse if they flout it with apparent impunity. They need to know adverse consequences will follow. Whilst there may well be too arguments as to whether one should have Asbos, if you do have them the purpose must be to stop the behaviour and make the perpetrator obtain respect for rules. Giving a short sentence of between 3 and 14 days custody for a breach might be more effective at preventing serious breaches, and enforcing respect, than waiting until those occur and then imposing a much longer period of custody.
It is not just the impact on the behaviour of one individual that is at stake here, but that of the group. The aim is not just to stop those who commit bad behaviour, but to stop them associating with others and in so doing encouraging to follow their lead. If Asbos are not enforced they are worse than useless because they will enhance the influence and status of the wrongdoer. If they end up showing that the wrongdoer can continue to defy authority they will achieve the exact opposite of their stated purpose.
Whilst this is the way that Asbos should be used, targeted more narrowly and enforced rigorously, whether they are, or are not, taking youngsters into care, or threatening to do so, is unlikely to do anything to improve the situation.