By Michelle McLean, Post Graduate Researcher
School of Social Policy and Society , University of Birmingham
Netflix’s four-part drama Adolescence made TV ratings history last month by becoming the first programme on a streaming platform to top the UK’s weekly audience charts. The show, about a thirteen-year-old boy accused of murdering a schoolgirl, has attracted a huge amount of commentary expressing shock that such a terrible crime could be perpetrated by a child, and confusion about who is to blame when a young person commits a violent crime.
Viewers may have seen elements of their own households in the show. Photos on the walls of a family home, shoes and coats by the front door, a teenager hooked on computer games, a birthday fry-up. The family depicted in Adolescence are, at face value, very ordinary. Perhaps it is this ordinariness, that has prompted such a visceral response from viewers. This is not the type of home we imagine killers come from.
Then there is Jamie, the accused. Wide-eyed, pale, his small frame swallowed up by the police-issued tracksuit he wears. In his bedroom, the walls decorated with planets, he wets himself when arrested. Then, terrified, he cries for his father at the police station. This vulnerability does not match the monstrous images that come to mind when we think of violent criminals.
Although not in the headlines, Netflix has another well-known ‘Jamie’, in the award-winning drama series Top Boy. The oldest of three orphaned siblings, the bereaved teenager becomes a legal guardian to his brothers. Viewers see his high standards for how they live in their high-rise flat, his uncompromising demands for his brothers’ good achievement at school and his desire to protect them at all costs. With no support network, skills or means, Jamie keeps his family afloat through crime, with increasingly violent consequences.
There was no collective shock from audiences, no discussions in the House of Commons and no public outrage about the conditions that caused this vulnerable young person to choose a life of dangerous crime. Is this because audiences saw it for what it was, a drama not a documentary? Or was it because Black, poor, parentless Jamie fitted a stereotype of youth crime that was not worthy of public discussion, pity or solutions? Perhaps the response to Adolescence has been so different because audiences see parts of themselves and their families in the show. The dangers feel closer to home.
For most of us, our knowledge of children in conflict with the law is limited to TV shows and news reports. Unaware of the complexities, we distil the issues down to ‘bad’ children and blame their parents for failing to keep them in line. The fix seems simple, in all things we should be tougher – school, home, the Youth Justice System. Just be tougher. Adolescence has shown that it is, of course, not so simple. The programme scrutinised some of the complex factors involved in youth crime. Generational trauma, an inadequate education system and online radicalisation were all depicted.
Keir Starmer has backed calls for Adolescence to be shown in schools. He has seized upon the online radicalisation aspect of the show, and how easily this can lure children into violent crime. But in placing the blame here, he has failed to address what Youth Justice professionals have been highlighting for a long time. Domestic violence, poor mental health, poverty and inequality are some of the biggest predictors of youth crime. These are societal, not individual factors, and so we cannot pin the blame on any one thing or person.
If it takes a village to raise a child, perhaps we are all to blame when children fall victim to the systemic failings that we’ve left unchallenged.
Some aspects of Adolescence may be unrealistic but what it has successfully done is challenge our perceptions and pull away the safety net that we thought our ordinariness offered us. If we thought being ‘good’ parents would keep our children safe, we’re now left questioning if this is enough. It’s complex, and we are forced to looked beyond the stereotypes and scrutinise ourselves and our society.
My hope is that we move beyond talking and start to take collective responsibility for young people who offend, and the harms they cause. Professionals working with young people already have expertise on the causes and consequences of youth crime, but they haven’t been listened to. They’ve been telling us the things that can be done to help but haven’t received the investment to make it happen. It’s time that changed. If it takes a village to raise a child, perhaps we are all to blame when children fall victim to the systemic failings that we’ve left unchallenged.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Birmingham.