Youth justice has undergone significant changes over the past fifteen years; central to this has been the prevention of offending through an actuarial risk-based model. However, the identification of risk factors largely ignored the growing area of emotional intelligence (EI). The purpose of this thesis was to identify whether young people’s EI was linked with their different aspects of their offending. The Mayer and Salovey four branch ability model of EI was adopted, assessed through the Adolescent Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (ASUEIT) - a self-report questionnaire based on this model. For this study, the ASUEIT was used with 100 young people receiving Supervision Orders, supervised by Leeds Youth Offending Service. Thirteen of them were interviewed to gain further insight into their emotions, and check the reliability and validity of the ASUEIT for young offenders. The interviewees selected were: (i) the top and bottom decile of ASUEIT scores, (ii) those in local authority care, and (iii) those first convicted age 12 or below. The ASUEIT results raised questions and concerns, as it did not appear to assess EI with this sample in a robust or consistent way. Reasons for this were explored, and the dataset improved by negating the reverse-scoring on reverse-scored questions, producing acceptable alpha scores. These data were analysed for correlations of EI with offending patterns, and with previously identified risk factors. Some branches from the model showed negative correlations with identified risk factors, for example having offending family members and not attending mainstream school. However, principal components analysis revealed a simpler three branch model, requiring a shorter questionnaire, which could be tested in future research. Links found within the dataset suggest EI to be a valuable area for youth justice interventions to explore further, especially EI scores seemed predictive of further offending, when linked with seriousness.

L’objet de cette étude est de mettre en avant le débat sur la délinquance des mineurs ainsi que le système judiciaire français et marocain mis en place afin de contrecarrer cette délinquance.La délinquance poursuivie par les forces de l’ordre et sanctionnée par la justice est caractérisée par le droit pénal. Lorsque le droit connait des changements, le champ de la délinquance expérimente des oscillations et par voie de conséquence, l’enregistrement des comportements délictueux aussi. Or, la croissance de la délinquance, et particulièrement celle des mineurs, s’analyse en fonction de son environnement juridique. Dans cette mouvance et bien que la délinquance des mineurs évolue dans les mêmes proportions et au même degré que celle des majeurs et bien qu’elle soit sanctionnée plus sévèrement, elle demande une attention particulière précisément, parce qu’il s’agit de mineurs.Dès lors, le rôle de la justice des mineurs ne doit pas se limiter uniquement à la répression. Cette dernière doit se donner les moyens de les comprendre pour être capable d’agir sur ce qui les a motivés et empêcher toute récidive. Sa mission doit avoir également un rôle « éducatif » et « préventif ».Sanction et éducation sont devenues ainsi deux dimensions indissociables dans le traitement de la délinquance des mineurs. Et c’est dans cette optique que le législateur français et marocain essaye de construire une politique de traitement de la délinquance tout en respectant la personnalité juridique fragile du mineur. / The purpose of this study is to highlight the debate on juvenile delinquency as well as the French and Moroccan judicial system set up to counteract this delinquency.Indeed, delinquency pursued by the police and sanctioned by justice is characterized by criminal law. When the law changes, the field of delinquency experiences oscillations and, consequently, the recording of criminal behavior as well. However, the growth of delinquency, and particularly that of minors, is analyzed according to its legal environment. In this movement and although juvenile delinquency evolves in the same proportions and to the same degree as that of adults and although it is sanctioned more severely, it requires special attention precisely because it is minors.Therefore, the role of juvenile justice should not be limited to repression alone. The latter must give itself the means to understand them to be able to act on what motivated them and to prevent any recurrence. Its mission must also have an "educational" and "preventive" role.Sanction and education have thus become two inseparable dimensions in the treatment of juvenile delinquency. And it is in this perspective that the French and Moroccan legislator tries to build a policy of treatment of juvenile delinquency while respecting the fragile legal personality of the minor.

Judicial discretion is at the heart of a humane criminal justice system, but the latitude exercisable in the UK juvenile courts allowed constructive treatment at one end of the spectrum and penal custody the other. Official acknowledgement of the different culpability of adult and juvenile offenders really began in the middle of the 19th century, and Parliament finally made provision early in the 20th century for this ‘welfare principle’, that reform and welfare rather than punishment were to guide judicial discretion in the decisions and conduct of juvenile criminal courts. This thesis offers an explanation for the varying emphasis given to this principle in England/Wales and Scotland, concentrating on the last 40 years of the 20th century. The lack of implementation of earlier reforms was confronted in two major reports, chaired by Kilbrandon in Scotland and Longford in England and Wales. Although they came to similar conclusions about the causes and the remedies for juvenile delinquency, and their subsequent legislation shared the same general philosophy, the implementation took diametrically different routes in the two jurisdictions. It is argued that deep-seated cultural and historical differences played a significant role both in legislative reforms and their application, coupled in Scotland with a conjunction of agency and political pragmatism that produced radical reforms. Significant factors implicated in the failure of the English reforms were political ambivalence towards the legislation; judicial/magisterial resistance or lack of training, particularly on child development; the absence of accountability in the magistracy; and the influence exercised by the Magistrates' Association. The research draws on archival papers and research literature, supplemented by interviews with key people. It has sought to find the origin of some influential ideas and explain their acceptance or rejection by the lay justices, through their exercise of judicial discretion. As there were further Acts related to juvenile defendants in both jurisdictions in the 1990s, the research was concluded with a consideration of their implementation.