Dr Liz Campbell: Desire for retribution doesn't address problem

THE conviction of these two young brothers for grievous bodily harm and sexual offences forces us to reassess how the criminal justice system should deal with violent and apparently dangerous children.

The desire for retribution and deterrence and the need to express our horror of such acts leads to demands for robust prison sentences and for the public naming of those involved. However, these instinctive reactions may fail to address the problematic behaviour of the individuals, and furthermore such policies may not prevent the reoccurrence of such acts.

The best way to deal with serious youth crime is to seek to prevent it. Research shows that youth crime, from crime against poverty through to serious harm against the person, is usually found in damaged and damaging families. Generally speaking, delinquency is linked to family breakdown, poor home conditions, child abuse or time spent in local authority care.

This is not to exculpate children who commit grave acts nor is it to suggest all young offenders have suffered similar harm, but it does demonstrate that criminality is more likely when the child grows up in difficult circumstances. Indeed, the attackers in Doncaster had a family background described in court as "toxic" and witnessed the violent abuse of their mother. This shows the need for support and assistance for families racked by abuse or addiction and for timely intervention by social services.

As we cannot prevent all youth crime, rehabilitation and education should be the primary goals ahead of retribution. Imprisonment should be a last resort and retained for the gravest of crimes, and any time in a penal institution should involve intensive psychological and educational services in a bid to rehabilitate young offenders whose developmental immaturity means rehabilitation is possible.

Undue imposition of the criminal label on a child may actually contribute to crime, whereby the child begins to behave according to the world's expectations. Similarly, the public naming of child offenders can compromise the possibility of rehabilitation, and this lay behind the decision of the court in Doncaster not to name the boys involved.

While this may infuriate some, this cautious approach serves the public interest far more than revelation would: retaining anonymity increases the chance of turning these boys' lives around.

• Dr Liz Campbell is a lecturer in criminology at Aberdeen University.