Wild Arabs and savages: A history of juvenile justice in Ireland

By Paul Sargent

This book is the first history of the Irish juvenile justice system. It charts the emergence of the system from the mid-nineteenth century to the present. From the beginning, the system was dominated by a large network of reformatory and industrial schools which incarcerated tens of thousands of children and remained in existence into the late twentieth century. This dominance was eventually challenged by emerging discourses which emanated from the psychological sciences, social work, youth work and the children’s rights movement.

The book draws from a wide range of official and unofficial sources in exploring the key rationalities underpinning the system. In adopting a governmentality approach, it also examines the technologies and forms of childhood identity that are employed to govern the child and young person within the context of the Irish juvenile justice system. This unique and original approach will appeal to legal scholars, criminologists and those with an interest in juvenile justice, history and social policy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Release date: May 16, 2016
• ISBN: 9781526112361

Paul Sargent

Paul Sargent is a Research Associate at the School of Social Work and Social Policy, University of Dublin, Trinity College

Book preview

1

Introduction

On 8 July 2001 Dáil Éireann enacted the Children Act 2001 replacing the Children Act 1908, which had been the primary legislation underpinning the juvenile justice system in Ireland for almost one hundred years. The objective of the 2001 Act was to ‘make further provision in relation to the care, protection and control of children’. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, John O’Donoghue, described the legislation as the ‘distillation of the accumulated wisdom and the best practice worldwide in the area of juvenile justice’ (Dáil Debates, vol. 517, 29 March 2000). The Act provides a new statutory framework for the juvenile justice system in Ireland and its 271 sections cover the areas of justice, education, health, child protection and welfare. This development was the state’s response to a widespread consensus that reform of the juvenile justice system was long overdue and that there was a need for a more humane system that would better meet the needs of the children it catered for.

Two years earlier, on 11 May 1999, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, while apologising to the victims of child abuse for the state’s ‘collective failure’, announced a number of measures, including the establishment of a Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The Commission, chaired by a judge of the High Court, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, was formally established on 23 May 2000 pursuant to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000. This Act was subsequently amended by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Commission, which eventually issued its final report in 2009 under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Sean Ryan, catalogued a litany of abuses of children in the state’s institutions, most of which formed part of the juvenile justice system. The report also described the systems of management, administration, operation, supervision, inspection and regulation of these institutions.

The report found that physical, emotional and sexual abuse and neglect were features of these institutions, with children often subjected to severe and brutal regimes of discipline. Systems of inspection were found to be totally inadequate. Indeed, government officials had adopted a ‘deferential and submissive’ attitude to the religious congregations that managed the schools, resulting in a failure to carry out their statutory duty and protect those children in their care. Initially established in the mid-nineteenth century, the reformatory and industrial schools dominated the Irish juvenile system for almost one hundred years, their dominance only being seriously challenged in the second half of the twentieth century. The legislation that provided for the reformatory and industrial schools was finally replaced with the enactment of the Children Act 2001.

The first reformatory school legislation was introduced in Ireland as a result of sustained lobbying from reformists in both Britain and Ireland. The National Reformatory Union, founded in 1856 to promote the cause of reformatory schools, counted among its ranks those employed within the criminal justice system and those with an interest in reforming the juvenile offender. One such advocate was P.J. Murray, a Dublin barrister who penned a series of articles supporting the Reformatory School Movement. He described those who founded the Union as ‘Prison Chaplains, hard working rectors, county magistrates, and other bucolic dreamers, backed by some lawyers, whose experience proved the utter absurdity and irreparable mischief, of committing juvenile criminals to common gaols’ (1856: 1). Murray would become the first inspector of reformatory schools in Ireland and his second annual report (1863) gives an insight into how children were viewed at this time. In outlining his suggested regime for reformatory schools in Ireland, he quotes from Mary Carpenter’s Essay on Food, Labour and Rest in Reformatories:

These wild Arabs, as well as savages, often show great quickness of apprehension, and the power of great exertion on emergencies; but they have little capability or liking for patient, steady, mental application, or regular hard labour, carried on in obedience to the direction of another. These must be taught them. Hence mental work must be considered, as well as what is commonly called industrial occupation. (Inspector of Reformatory Schools of Ireland, 1863: 15; italics in original)

The history of juvenile justice in Ireland is remarkable for the lack of change and innovation in terms of both legislation and policy development when compared with other jurisdictions. Apart from some relatively minor pieces of legislation, the Children Act 1908, which consolidated a large amount of legislation relating to juvenile offending from the second half of the nineteenth century, remained the statutory framework upon which the system was based for almost one hundred years. In terms of provision, reformatory and industrial schools acted as clearing houses for most of the ‘troubled or troublesome’ juveniles in the country from the mid-nineteenth century until the late twentieth century.

In essence there was little difference between the regimes that operated in both types of school. The reformatory school system was established in Ireland under the Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Act 1858 and a decade later the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act 1868 provided for the establishment of industrial schools. The Children Act 1908 later amended both pieces of legislation. Section 44 of the 1908 Act defines an industrial school as a school for the industrial training of children, ‘in which they are lodged, clothed and fed, as well as taught’. Section 44 defines a reformatory school in the same terms, but substitutes ‘youthful offenders’ for ‘children’. The majority of children detained in these institutions were detained in industrial schools. Following Irish independence in 1922, most of these schools were run by Catholic religious organisations with the Christian Brothers operating the majority of industrial schools for boys and the Sisters of Mercy operating the majority of industrial schools for girls.

While there was little or no change to the existing system in Ireland in the years following independence, in other jurisdictions one can see the emergence of new innovations in relation to the treatment of juvenile offenders and potential offenders. In England and Scotland in the 1930s legislation amending the Children Act 1908 heralded a new approach to the treatment of young offenders. Such a change in thinking about the way that young people were to be treated was reflected in England in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and in Scotland in the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Acts 1932 and 1937. With these and subsequent enactments one can see a movement away from the institutional model as represented in the reformatory and industrial school system. In England this resulted in the eventual emergence of community-based diversionary initiatives such as ‘intermediate treatment’, while in Scotland the Children’s Hearing System was established in the late 1960s following the publication of the Kilbrandon Report in 1964.

There have been various explanations as to why similar legislative and policy developments did not occur in Ireland. These include the particular insularity of the country and the dominant influence of the Catholic Church on policy development, the failure of influential lobbying groups such as the trade unions to identify with the issue of juvenile justice reform, the Irish government’s subsidiary attitude to policy development in this area and the lack of criminological research in Ireland. This is despite the fact that there have been numerous reports, both from government and non-governmental sources, calling for reform in this area.

By the early 2000s there appeared to be a real appetite on the part of government for change with regard to the juvenile justice system. However, change came slowly. In October 2004 the government established a project team to examine how the state’s services could be rationalised and restructured in accordance with the new legislative basis, the Children Act 2001.

The Report on the Youth Justice Review (Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 2006), which was the product of the team’s deliberations, outlined a number of proposals that would lay the foundations for a ‘joined-up’ approach to the area of juvenile justice. One of the most interesting aspects of this report is the language it employs. The juvenile justice system was rebranded the ‘youth justice system’ and described as providing, based on the Children Act 2001, a twin-track, child welfare and justice approach. The report appeared to be heralding a new expanded territory, a ‘youth justice’ space where the child would be cared for and controlled as required. The emergence of this ‘new’ approach to governing children is the starting point for this book.

The Report on the Youth Justice Review envisioned a blend of justice and welfare initiatives or more accurately a balance between the two. In response to the perceived lack of co-ordination of services in the area of juvenile justice the report recommended the establishment of a Youth Justice Service, under the control of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to oversee the implementation of a ‘unified model of service delivery’. This new Youth Justice Service would combine services for young offenders under one governance and management structure. Underpinning the unified governance structure recommended by the report is a particular conceptualisation of the young person as potentially ‘troubled and troublesome’. In this regard, the report envisages the development of a parallel structure in the Health Service Executive (the main statutory provider of health services in Ireland) that would facilitate the state’s governance of these troubled and troublesome children.

The Irish Youth Justice Service (IYJS) was established in 2006 and according to its National Youth Justice Strategy (IYJS, 2008b: 2) is:

guided by the principles of the Children Act, 2001 and is focused on … diverting children from crime and the criminal justice system, promoting restorative justice, enforcing community sanctions, facilitating rehabilitation and, as a last resort, providing for detention. The IYJS works with the criminal justice agencies, the Office of the Minister for Children … and other statutory and non-statutory bodies such as the Health Service Executive, and organisations in the community and voluntary sectors.

The IYJS now operates as an executive office within the Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA), which was established in June 2011 to consolidate the functions of a number of government departments in key areas of policy and provision for children and young people. These include the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the National Educational Welfare Board and the Family Support Agency.¹

This book is not concerned with the degree to which the Irish juvenile justice system is effective in terms of governance or outcomes. It aims to open up the space that is ‘youth justice’ and, by looking at its past, examine how we have come to speak about ‘youth justice’ itself. In essence, it aims to map the changing ‘mentalities’ that have been employed to govern children from the origins of the system in the mid-nineteenth century to the present. So, for example, it will consider how notions of risk and diversion are increasingly utilised to govern children within the justice system without being concerned with the effectiveness or consequences of these approaches. In a similar fashion, it will consider how different innovations in law and policy are utilised to govern without being concerned with the merits or otherwise of such developments. That is not to say that these issues are not important, however, they are beyond the scope of this book.

In adopting a governmentality approach, one avoids the pitfalls of grand theorisation and reductionism associated with revisionism allowing one to analyse the practices that are assembled to regulate the ‘child’ without assuming any prior theoretical position. Also, one can map the emergence of juvenile justice in Ireland without attempting to fit events into one neat theoretical explanation or describe events from a ‘presentist’ perspective. If the reader is left feeling that there are some questions left unanswered then this is not altogether unintended. In this regard, Rose, et al. note that governmentality studies should not be criticised for not doing what they never intended to do as, ‘the aim of such studies is critical, but not critique – to identify and describe differences and hence to help make criticism possible’ (2006: 101). It is in this sense that one is here aiming to ‘open up’ the youth justice space and facilitate future critique in this area without providing a critique of elements of the system or of the system as a whole. So, for example, although the emerging discourse on children’s rights is an important aspect of how the child is constructed ‘as a bearer of rights’, it is not intended to evaluate the current juvenile justice system from a rights perspective, this has been covered by others in the field. Likewise, it is not intended to critique the development of the formal justice system or speculate why a particular direction was chosen at a given time. In this regard, Mitchell Dean (2010: 267) defines governmentality as:

how we think about governing others and ourselves in a wide variety of contexts. In a more limited sense, the different ways governing is thought about in the contemporary world and which in large part can be traced back to Western Europe from the sixteenth century.

At first glance the history of juvenile justice in Ireland would appear to be a relatively brief and uncomplicated one. One could conclude that following almost one hundred years of a repressive and unenlightened regime dominated by the reformatory and industrial schools, a more enlightened approach begins to emerge in the early 1970s, eventually culminating in the enactment of the Children Act 2001 and the establishment of a new ‘youth justice’ system. However, this simplistic or ‘whiggish’ version of history fails to capture the complex developments that resulted in the formation of the youth justice system.

Utilising a ‘governmentality’ framework, this book seeks to unsettle the conditions of possibility that resulted in the emergence of the youth justice system. Rather than employing a state-centred approach, this book disturbs the often progressive rhetoric that characterises much of the discourse on youth justice and asks what it is we mean when we use the term ‘youth justice’. It aims to open up the space that is ‘youth justice’ and unearth the underlying rationalities, technologies and forms of identity that are employed to govern the child and young person within the modern Irish juvenile justice system.

Within the context of the Irish juvenile justice system, the state was to a large extent absent from the practicalities of regulating children for most of the twentieth century, abdicating its responsibilities to religious and voluntary organisations. Also, for almost a century there was little in the way of legislative or policy development in this area. With this in mind, it makes little sense to concentrate primarily on the state in order to explain how we arrived at the current youth justice system. By utilising a governmentality approach the book takes the focus away from an analysis of the ‘state’ and concentrates on an analysis of the ‘problematics’ of government. It is within this context that ‘governmentality’ as a methodological tool is utilised, engaging in a more localised form of enquiry, steering clear of grand theorisation.

This approach involves an examination of key documents and pieces of legislation that emerged from the beginning of the nineteenth century to the early twenty-first century. One can chart the changing mentalities or lines of government in a wide range of documents, including reports of inspectors of reformatory and industrial schools, reports from prison authorities, police reports, reports of commissions of inquiry, reports from lobbyists, individual testimonies, academic studies, policy or strategy documents, management guidelines and training and practice manuals.

Following Dean (2010), one can, by attending to the various practices, techniques and forms of identity that operate to govern within the juvenile justice system, ask four types of question:

First, how is the juvenile justice system made visible? This refers to the visible ways that the system seeks to govern: reformatory and industrial schools, borstal, open prisons, the Children Court, places of detention, secure units and community projects. By utilising a governmentality approach one can also make visible those aspects of the system that are less prominent. In particular, throughout the first half of the twentieth century one can see the emergence of an extensive regulatory grid mostly comprising initiatives sponsored by Catholic religious organisations and designed to regulate certain sections of the juvenile population.

Second, how do the various forms of knowledge or rationalities of government that are employed to govern within this regime affect the practices of government? Such rationalities include restorative justice, rehabilitation, risk assessment, diversion, psychology, probation, social work, youth work and detention.

Third, how and by what techniques is government achieved? This concerns the technical aspects or technologies of the system, including: counting, identification, targeting, practical form-filling, categorising, management procedures, handbooks, the technical language employed, the vocabularies utilised to construct the subjects of government, forms of expertise and the physical architecture of containment.

Fourth, how is young people’s identity conceptualised for the purpose of governing them within the ‘youth justice’ system? The effect that notions such as citizenship, employability, entrepreneurship, vulnerability, reformation, deprivation, risk and rights have in shaping the identity of the young person within the context of the juvenile justice system, resulting in formation of identities such as the ‘at risk child’, the ‘delinquent child’ or the ‘child as a bearer of rights’.

By asking such questions one can trace the lines of government that exist within the juvenile justice system. These lines of government exist within the practical procedures that people working within the system use to record decisions, the different types of knowledge they employ to make their judgements and the programmes they adopt to achieve their aims. As such, information relating to how we govern is to be found not only in political rationalities but also in the practical nuts and bolts of the system itself.

Having examined the system along these four distinct lines of enquiry the book describes how the state has become more enmeshed in the business of governing the juvenile offender and potential offender within the context of the ‘new’ youth justice system or the increasing governmentalisation of the state. In contrast to the previous two hundred years, in the 2000s the state took centre stage in terms of the delivery of juvenile justice. What one sees now is a largely state-centred system. Dean (2010: 267) describes the governmentalisation of the state as the ‘long-term trajectory by which the exercise of sovereignty comes to be articulated through the regulation of populations and individuals and the psychological, biological, sociological and economic processes that constitutes them’. So rather than viewing the ‘state’ as the origin of government one asks how the state at particular moments in history came to connect itself ‘to a diversity of forces and groups that in different ways had long tried to shape and administer the lives of individuals in pursuit of various goals’ (Rose et al., 2006: 87).

Outline of the book

This introductory chapter has provided a brief overview of the development of the juvenile justice system in Ireland, highlighting the lack of legal and policy development throughout most of the twentieth century.

Given the fact that there is no existing history of juvenile justice in Ireland, Chapter 2 provides a straightforward chronological review of some of the main developments that have occurred from the emergence of the Irish juvenile justice system in the early nineteenth century to the early twenty-first century. It offers the reader a general overview of the key developments and provides a historical context for the main study without attempting any theoretical explanation. It also reviews some of the existing literature relating to the Irish juvenile justice system.

The subsequent chapters are not linked by any narrative structure and could be read as stand-alone pieces. They are aimed at analysing how the child and young person is governed within the context of the Irish juvenile justice system without following a progressive historical narrative. As such the reader is invited to look at the Irish juvenile justice system from four distinct perspectives. So, for example, the establishment of the borstal institution is initially considered from a historical perspective and located within the context of the overall historical development of the system. It is then considered from a visibility perspective, in terms of its underlying rationalities, as a technology of government and finally in the context of the forms of childhood identity employed to govern. It should also be noted that within each individual chapter a strict historical narrative is not adhered to, with the result that the reader’s attention is drawn to the practices of government, the technologies, the rationalities and the forms of identity employed rather than the evolution of juvenile justice policy in general.² So rather than engaging in the debate as to whether the current system, with its emphasis on diversion, is more progressive or an exercise in net-widening, the focus is on the practicalities of governing the troubled and troublesome child.

Chapter 3 explains how the justice system became visible in Ireland. It highlights how the ‘problem’ of the juvenile delinquent emerged in the mid-nineteenth century. In Ireland, the category ‘juvenile offender’ and ‘juvenile crime’ first emerge in 1853 in the Thirty-first Report of the Inspectors-General on the State of the Prisons of Ireland. Both the problem of delinquency and its government are framed within various official reports by means of statistics. In addition, a new system of governing the delinquent population emerged in the form of the reformatory and later the industrial school and these regulatory sites supplemented existing sites such as the workhouse and the prison. From a governmentality perspective, the growth in bio-political knowledge surrounding the child results in the greater classification of delinquency and also results in a more refined calibration of the system itself.³ Although legislation providing for the borstal system and probation was later enacted, these initiatives never challenged the dominance of the reformatory and industrial school system and it was to be the early 1970s before this model began to be replaced. Around this time we see the emergence of a range of regulatory sites located within the ‘community’. However, it has to be acknowledged that prior to this a less visible regulatory grid existed in the various initiatives promoted by religious organisations from the late nineteenth century onwards. The juvenile justice system has since become less visible but more pervasive within a myriad of governmental spaces within the community that supplement the more visible institutional sites.

Chapter 4 examines the diverse range of rationalities that underpin the juvenile justice system. By examining numerous official and unofficial reports as well as other relevant literature not accessed before in this context, this chapter unpicks the main governmental rationalities that occupy this space. Recent rationalities to emerge in this regard are those of ‘community’ and ‘citizenship’. The former seeks to enlist various alliances within the community in order to govern. The latter encourages the empowerment of young people to become active citizens and enhance their participation in ‘civic society’. Rationalities such as social work, probation and psychology began to gain prominence in the 1960s as the dominant religious discourses began to be challenged. An often neglected rationality of government is that of ‘youth work’, which has been present from the beginning of the twentieth century in Ireland. For most of the twentieth century it formed part of a socio-spiritual discourse and was dominated by religious organisations. From the 1960s it began to become a more secularised activity, however, many of the religious organisations that were prominent in this field from the early twentieth century remain active today. Likewise although the reformatory and industrial school system has been replaced, the underlying rationality of reformation remains active within the juvenile justice field.

Chapter 5 analyses the technologies that are employed within the juvenile justice system to govern young people. Following Nikolas Rose (1996a) these technologies are classified as either disciplinary or pastoral. Disciplinary technologies usually involve a specific regulation of time and space. This manifests itself in some form of panoptic architecture combined with the day-to-day regulation of time. They are embodied in detention centres, reformatory and industrial schools and special care units where strict regulations govern the organisation and movement of those contained within them. Pastoral technologies, on the other hand, are usually based on rituals of confession and self-disclosure and entail some form of pastoral relationship with another person. They are generally found in community-based programmes that encourage the young person to change their lifestyle, increase their self-esteem or become active citizens. They are to be found in restorative justice initiatives, crime prevention initiatives, Youth Projects and Probation Projects. Disciplinary and pastoral techniques are not mutually exclusive and many pastoral technologies are employed in disciplinary settings. Until the early 1970s the juvenile justice system was dominated by disciplinary technologies epitomised by the reformatory and industrial schools. With the decline of the institutional model of regulation and the ascendancy of the diversionary model, pastoral technologies have come to dominate the justice system with large numbers of young people governed in ‘open’ sites within the ‘community’.

Chapter 6 examines the specific forms of childhood identity that are employed in order to govern young people within the juvenile justice system. This chapter does not attempt a narrative history of ‘childhood identity’ but rather seeks to unsettle the various regimes of subjectification to which the concept of identity is linked. With this in mind, ‘identity’ is examined in terms of its function as a regulatory ideal rather than trying to construct a historical narrative of the subject. It is within this context that the chapter looks at the most prominent forms of identity that are employed to govern within the ‘youth justice’ space. Various forms of identity, such as the ‘delinquent’, the ‘reformable child’, the ‘psychological child’, the ‘at risk child’ and the ‘child as a bearer of rights’, are examined. These forms of identity are not employed in isolation but often complement each other in the process of governing the offender and potential offender.

The book concludes by highlighting the manner in which the state has become enmeshed in the activity of governing children and young people. This increased governmentalisation of the state in the context of the development of the Irish juvenile justice system has gained significant momentum in the twenty-first century with the ‘rationalisation and restructuring’ of services and the establishment of the Irish Youth Justice Service and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs.

In brief, this book aims to unsettle our understanding of the ‘juvenile offender’ and the juvenile justice system by providing a critical analysis of how they have emerged over the last two hundred years.

Notes

1  The IYJS is staffed by officials from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Justice and Equality and responsibility for the implementation of the Children Act 2001 is shared by both departments. The former is responsible for the three detention schools at Oberstown, Lusk and the latter has responsibility for matters relating to An Garda Síochána, the Probation Service and the Irish Prison Service.

2  I have drawn inspiration here from the method employed by Nikolas Rose in Powers of Freedom. Rose notes that the chapters of his book are not linked by any narrative structure but describes each one as standing on its own, ‘as a little map or diagram of a certain set of problems and issues. Together I hope they amount to something like a partial glossary or a selection of entries from an imaginary and always unfinished encyclopaedia’ (1999: 12).

3  Bio-politics is ‘a form of politics, conducted largely since the eighteenth century, concerned with the administration of the conditions of life of the population. The concept of population as a living entity composed of vital processes is essential to bio-politics. Bio-political interventions are made into the health, habitation, urban environment, working conditions and education of various populations’ (Dean, 2010: 266).

2

From penitentiary to community

‘thousands of miserable human beings’

Concern about the treatment of children within the prison system in Ireland can be traced back to the late eighteenth century. Following calls for the reform of the Irish prison system from prison reformers John Howard and Jeremiah Fitzpatrick, at the end of the eighteenth century a penitentiary was added to the Dublin House of Industry at St James’s Street, Dublin, to cater for juveniles and females.¹ Jeremiah Fitzpatrick, physician and inspector of prisons in Ireland, had campaigned for reform of a prison system which did not distinguish between adult and child prisoners. Fitzpatrick, an advocate of the penitentiary system took charge of the first penitentiary in Ireland at St James’s Street in Dublin in 1790. Although this was a relatively short-lived ‘experiment’ it served as a blueprint for the Smithfield penitentiary in Dublin (MacDonagh, 1981). Smithfield, established in 1801, was originally aimed at offenders under fifteen years awaiting transportation who were to be reformed utilising a regime of penitentiary training. It also catered for convicted adult female prisoners. The provision of a penitentiary for boys at Smithfield was the first step towards improving the conditions of children within the prison system (Robins, 1980). In 1844 Smithfield was converted to a convict depot, a measure taken to relieve pressure on Kilmainham gaol.²

In Ireland the problem of overcrowding in the prison system became a critical one with the replacement of transportation, as a sentencing option, with penal servitude in 1853. The government had made a commitment to establish a separate penal reformatory for juveniles under sixteen years of age, however, this was being hampered by the lack of space within the system.³ A review of correspondence relevant to the administration of the convict prison system at this time indicates that the authorities in Ireland regarded the establishment of at least one juvenile reformatory institution a necessity. The juvenile prisoner population was estimated at this time to be approximately six hundred and a number of sites were being considered as suitable for the establishment of a juvenile reformatory. These included: the Curragh of Kildare, Lullymore Island in the Bog of Allen and Castlereagh House in Mayo (House of Commons, 1854). However, an interim solution to the problem was reached by the directors of convict prisons when a decision was made to transfer all male juveniles under seventeen to Mountjoy and Philipstown prisons (House of Commons, 1855).

In 1852 a Select Committee on Criminal and Destitute Juveniles, was appointed and its brief included recommending possible changes that might be desirable in the existing criminal justice system ‘in order to supply Industrial Training, and to combine Reformation with due correction of Juvenile Crime’ (House of Commons, 1853). Its report concluded that appropriate intervention in the lives of