Cambridge International AS & A Level
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES & RESEARCH 9239/11
Paper 1 Written Exam May/June 2023
INSERT 1 hour 30 minutes
INFORMATION
*4648571628-I*
● This insert contains all the resources referred to in the questions.
● You may annotate this insert and use the blank spaces for planning. Do not write your answers on the
insert.
This document has 4 pages. Any blank pages are indicated.
DC (CJ) 313375/1
© UCLES 2023 [Turn over
2
The following documents consider issues related to crime. Read them both in order to answer all the
questions on the paper.
Document A: adapted from Young offenders don’t belong in adult prisons. California has a chance
to end the practice, an article written by Vincent Schiraldi, published in ‘LA Times’ (US) in
2020. The author is former commissioner of the New York City Department of Probation
and co-director of the Columbia University Justice Lab (US).
Adulthood doesn’t magically happen on the day someone turns 18. Any parent knows this, and
numerous laws and social practices also recognize the fact. In 2016, California prohibited the purchase
of tobacco by anyone aged under 21. Californians under 21 are not allowed to consume alcohol
or marijuana or purchase handguns in the state. Nationally, youth can stay on their parents’ health
insurance until age 26 under the Affordable Care Act.
In November, the Chief Probation Officers of California proposed raising the age limit on California’s
youth justice system from 18 to 20. The plan would make California the second US state to recognize
that young people, whether they’re 18 or 20, don’t belong in adult courts and prisons. The bill could be
introduced this year. This policy shift makes sense. We all want the same thing for youth who get into
trouble with the law: a system that makes them less likely to re-offend and more likely to live happy,
productive lives.
The youth justice system, though imperfect, is more appropriate. It has more rehabilitation than the
punishment-focused criminal justice system. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention found that juveniles under 18 who go through the youth justice system, have lower re-arrest
rates than youths who go through the adult system. Engaging them in education, community service
and work with people of their own age has the potential to steer youth toward more successful lives.
A prison record makes it far more difficult to find housing and jobs later on. The juvenile system, on the
other hand, offers more protection. If they stay out of trouble, those who go through the system can
have records hidden from public view. Youthful mistakes won’t affect them for the rest of their lives.
However, if they commit serious offenses, juveniles may still be tried as adults.
When America’s juvenile courts were launched in the early 1900s, they generally adopted age 18 as
their upper limit. At that time, 18-year-olds stepped into adult roles like spouse, parent and worker.
Research shows that marriage and work help young people grow out of youthful troublemaking. Today,
emerging adults live in their family homes longer. They complete their educations, go to work, and
marry much later than previous generations. In 1960, for example, 45% of youth ages 18–24 were
married; by the 2010 census, only 9% were.
Some have expressed concern that adding an influx of 18- to 21-year-olds to the state’s juvenile
courts, probation facilities and prisons would overwhelm them. Indeed, last year in California, there
were nearly as many arrests for 18- and 19-year-olds (14,400) as for all youth ages 10 through 17
(17,200). But in states that have raised the age limit, such as New York and Massachusetts, juvenile
court caseloads and detention populations actually declined.
To help prevent problems, raising the age to qualify for the youth justice system should be carefully
planned, gradually phased in and properly funded, so the state maximizes its ability to turn young lives
around.
A proposal that increases the chance that young people graduate from the justice system and go on to
live productive lives has the potential to improve the safety of all Californians.
© UCLES 2023 9239/11/INSERT/M/J/23
3
Document B: adapted from Prison rehabilitation, an article written by Akola Thompson, published
in ‘The Minority Report’, ‘Stabroek News’ (Guyana) in 2020. The author is a freelance
writer and journalist living in Guyana. She is currently the youngest columnist in the
country and comments mostly on socio-political ills.
The public does not sympathise with the case for prison reform and rehabilitation. The fact that it costs
more to rehabilitate an offender than to simply leave them in prison serves as a major barrier to prison
reform.
While there has been slow progress towards the introduction of reform and rehabilitation programmes,
we are still far behind what is needed. Academic and vocational programmes for small sections of the
prison population have had some success. This is a first step towards a culture that treats its prisoners
as citizens capable of change.
Many prisoners are uneducated and poor. So, gaining essential knowledge and skills does a lot to
improve their lives after release. Decades of research has proven that prisoners who are exposed to,
and participate in, prison rehabilitative programmes are less likely to reoffend. Given the high numbers
of repeat offenders in our society, it is time we reform our prison system.
People being imprisoned daily for minor crimes has led to the urgent issue of overcrowding within
the prisons. People who are awaiting trial mix with convicted criminals. With no separation, violent
and non-violent offenders exist in the same space, often resulting in the influencing, recruiting and
hardening of non-violent offenders.
Our lack of sympathy with rehabilitation comes from our belief that someone who is imprisoned
automatically loses their right to basic humanity. So, when released from prison, they face stigmatization
that makes it difficult for them to live and earn. Although prison conditions are horrible, some offenders
prefer to return to prison. This is because it is so difficult for them to reintegrate into society.
There are always those who argue that the prison system as it exists is necessary to fight the high
levels of crime we experience. While there certainly should be measures in place to hold criminals
to account, our prison system does more harm than good. It is still tied to the old principles of racist
and capitalist exploitation. The early justice system was based largely on control of the people and
especially the work force. This is why anything that might cause social unrest, threaten private property
or challenge the political establishment is criminalized and effectively shut down.
The history of our justice and prison system shows it is no coincidence that those behind prison bars
are overwhelmingly poor and black. The justice system is set up to extract wealth from those who are
least able to afford it. The class prejudice of capitalism underlies all of this. The rich and powerful are
frequently allowed to commit fraud, rob and kill without any kind of punishment. Meanwhile, the poor
and the working class, who are often pushed to crime through desperation, are sent to rot in jail.
People in prison do not lack humanity or the capacity to grow and develop. Those who live behind bars
must be provided with opportunities to rehabilitate and explore other options beyond prison. To achieve
that, effective justice and prison systems must be put in place.
© UCLES 2023 9239/11/INSERT/M/J/23
4
BLANK PAGE
Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has been sought and cleared where possible. Every
reasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES) to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included, the
publisher will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity.
To avoid the issue of disclosure of answer-related information to candidates, all copyright acknowledgements are reproduced online in the Cambridge
Assessment International Education Copyright Acknowledgements Booklet. This is produced for each series of examinations and is freely available to download
at www.cambridgeinternational.org after the live examination series.
Cambridge Assessment International Education is part of Cambridge Assessment. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of the University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is a department of the University of Cambridge.
© UCLES 2023 9239/11/INSERT/M/J/23
