July 19, 2021
Perceptions and experiences of children and young people in English Custodial Centres and Spanish Re-educational Centres: A comparative study
This thesis examines countries that have not yet reached full compliance with international standards when it comes to children who offend. England and Wales’ youth justice system has been framed, even though it has not always been the case, within a ‘justice model’ where the protection of the public and a focus on reduction of offending take precedence over the welfare of the child. This sets it even further away from others in achieving some of the standards stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989; the UN Standard Minimum Rules for theAdministration of Juvenile Justice, 1985; the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec. 20, 2003; the UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency,1990; and the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 1990. Research has argued that children experience a justice system that is more punitive and are treated more harshly than Spain. Although efforts are being made to comply with such standards and to promote children’s well-being, there is much work to be done. It requires a change and harmonisation of policies and practices, on a national, European and UN level. In order to demonstrate this, a comparison of the youth justice systems in England and Wales and Spain was performed.
This thesis compares the youth justice systems in England and Wales and Spain, examining the practical implications and experiences of children within each jurisdiction. Through a mixed-methods approach involving questionnaires with 561 young people in Spanish Re-educational Centres (RECs) and interviews with 11 young people and 10 staff members, the study highlights key differences between the two systems.
While both countries have similar policies, their underlying philosophies and practices differ significantly. The Spanish system is more child-focused, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration, while the English and Welsh system is more contract-focused and punitive. The study suggests that factors such as the age of criminal responsibility, the use of criminal records, the involvement of not-for-profit organizations, and the training and qualifications of staff working with young offenders contribute to these differences. The author recommends raising the age of criminal responsibility, limiting the use of criminal records, involving not-for-profit organizations in the management of youth custody, and ensuring that staff working with young offenders are highly qualified and trained in child-centered approaches.
