Netflix’s ‘Adolescence’ Shines a Light on How Britain’s Criminal Justice System Abuses Boys

Netflix’s ‘Adolescence’ follows the story of a 13-year-old boy, Jamie, as he goes through Britain’s criminal justice system after being accused of murdering a girl in his school named Katie. It has gained a lot of attention for highlighting the dangers of misogyny among boys – a hugely important and relevant topic. It is a powerful drama with spectacular acting performances. Another significant aspect of the show that is being largely overlooked in media and political commentary, however, is its portrayal of serious mistreatment of boys by adults who have a duty of care within the criminal justice system – something that is unfortunately all too common in real life.

 

How ‘Adolescence’ Portrays the Abuse of Boys

The first episode opens with heavily armed police officers smashing their way into Jamie’s bedroom in the early morning. Jamie is still in bed and in his pyjamas. A police officer points his gun at Jamie, who is barely awake and now sitting up in his bed, looking dazed, and screams at him: “GET YOUR HANDS IN THE FUCKING AIR!”. Jamie, visibly frightened and upset, complies with the order. We soon learn that Jamie has wet himself during the ordeal – we see the wet patch down the front of his trousers. After being allowed to change into new trousers, Jamie is then taken to a police station and made to undergo a strip-search by two police officers – there is no safeguarding referral, and no explanation from the officers to Jamie of how he might find this uncomfortable and letting him know how he can signal any distress; they simply say to his father that it is “necessary” and that “There is a chance that he may have concealed things on or around his body”. The potential emotional and psychological ramifications for Jamie are never discussed or explained by the officers. One of the officers is heard telling Jamie during the search, “If I can just ask you to lift up your penis”.

Megan Smith-Dobric, a PhD candidate for Law at the University of Oxford who researches the dehumanisation of young offenders in Britain’s criminal justice system, has praised ‘Adolescence’ for its portrayal of this strip-search scene, and notes that it tragically mirrors reality:

“By far the most horrific ordeal that Jamie is subjected to is an intrusive strip-search. It’s conducted by two male officers, despite his father’s protests.

Disturbingly, strip-searching remains standard practice when children enter prison. They may also be subjected to it again when they are discharged, after a room search, or following a visit.

A recent report by the children’s commissioner revealed that between January 2018 and June 2023, a child was strip-searched more than once a day in England and Wales. The youngest was just eight years old – below the age of criminal responsibility.

Even more concerning is that in almost half (45%) of cases, the presence of an “appropriate adult” could not be confirmed, despite this being a statutory safeguard. Additionally, 47% of all strip-searches resulted in “no further action”, thereby calling into question their broader necessity and justification.”

The Children’s Commissioner also noted in her 2023 report that 95% of strip-searches were used against boys, disproportionately black boys; those who are okay with this treatment of black boys, but claim to be champions of the ‘white working-class’, clearly do not understand that both of these demographics share the same characteristic of being dehumanised by the establishment. Hence, no child should be dehumanised. Some of the recommendations put forward by the Children’s Commissioner include: “Strip searches should be authorised by an inspector, or ratified by a custody inspector in custody”; “A safeguarding referral should be made whenever a strip or intimate search of a child is conducted”; and “The potentially traumatic effect of strip searches on children and a police officer’s duty to safeguard children should be emphasised”. None of these procedures are shown being followed when Jamie is strip-searched in the show – illustrating how recommendations on paper are not always translated into actual conduct and still leave children very vulnerable to abuses of power.

Katy Otto of the Juvenile Law Center in the US has likewise praised how ‘Adolescence’ portrays this strip-search scene; she notes that while Jamie “was not held in solitary, pepper sprayed, or shackled” – something that predominantly black and brown children in the US are often subjected to – “Jamie did experience the humiliation of a strip search as children in the United States do, which we know is inappropriate and harmful.” Former police constable Steven Barclay has furthermore observed that if Jamie’s rights were being safeguarded, it should have been a doctor and a nurse performing any kind of strip-search on him, not two “burly ginger police officers like me standing there in uniform going: “Yeah, get your cock out mate.” He’s a 13-year-old child”; Barclay has also stated that the appropriate way for a police officer to talk to Jamie would have been to say: “Mate, I’ve arrested you. I don’t know what’s happened and I know this is shit” – rather than “playing bad cops”, as many of the police officers in the show are portrayed as doing (and which unfortunately has happened all too often in real life).

Megan Smith-Dobric has argued that the practice of strip-searching children should be abolished altogether, as it is a severe human rights violation:

“Degrading searches of this kind violate not just one but several articles contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory. These include Article 37 (the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 19 (protection from violence, abuse and neglect) and Article 16 (the right to privacy).

Given the profound psychological and emotional impact such practices can have on children long into adulthood, I believe there is even a compelling argument that they breach Article 6, the right to life, survival and development.”

Community Legal Action has also noted that Jamie’s defence solicitor in the first episode – supplied to him by the police station – utterly fails in his legal obligations towards Jamie; he does not intervene to call an end to the police interview when the police ask Jamie questions that Jamie does not understand while in an emotionally vulnerable state (Jamie breaks down in tears when presented with screenshots of CCTV footage that the police had not previously shown to the solicitor). As noted by Community Legal Action, he also fails to challenge both the extreme display of force that the police used while arresting Jamie, which Jamie’s family complained to him of, and the subsequent strip-search that Jamie was subjected to. Another failure by Jamie’s defence solicitor comes when the police take a blood sample from him; Rebecca Smart of Kingsley Napley has observed: “Jamie has a fear of needles but the police want to take a blood sample. When Jamie tries to refuse, Mr Barlow [the defence solicitor] fails to advise Jamie that a blood sample is an intimate sample, which means he doesn’t have to comply if he doesn’t want to, as per section 62 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.” This again highlights the vulnerability of Jamie and how the adults who are supposed to be protecting him fail to do so.

In the second episode, two police officers are present while Jamie’s schoolfriend, Ryan, is beaten up by a girl named Jade, who was Katie’s best friend, in the school grounds; she punches him in the face, causing his nose to bleed and knocking him to the ground, and then proceeds to repeatedly kick him while he is bleeding on the ground. The police officers do not even talk to Jade, let alone arrest her – instead, they talk to Ryan while he is in the school sick room, trying to find out what he knows about Jamie’s crime. His parents are not present – only the school nurse is present – and the officers question him while he is still bleeding. Later, one of the police officers chases Ryan down the street when he tries to run away from them; this police officer grabs Ryan’s arm and aggressively questions him about Jamie’s crime – this time, no other adults are present as Ryan is subjected to an aggressive, impromptu interrogation, as he looks taken aback and afraid. At this point, Ryan has not been arrested or charged with anything. The police officer says to Ryan menacingly, “do not play with me”, and screams into his face while holding his arm: “THERE’S A DEAD FUCKING GIRL! RIGHT!”, and shouts at him: “Answer the question! Talk!”. All this while Ryan still has dried blood on his face from the earlier beating. Ryan gives a frightened confession under these intimidating tactics to having given Jamie the knife, which Jamie had then used to kill Katie – Ryan insists that he did not know that Jamie was planning to kill her. Ryan is then promptly placed under arrest as another police officer shows up, manhandles Ryan, and handcuffs him – Ryan is visibly shocked and distressed. All this has taken place without his parents present, and without any adults being able to intervene or advocate on his behalf.

In the third episode, Jamie is subjected to a protracted period of questioning by a female psychologist while in detention. When Jamie becomes restless and distracted, he yawns while she is talking to him, to which she responds with a hostile and sarcastic: “am I boring you?” – not how an adult professional should communicate with a child. An increasingly acrimonious exchange unfolds between the two, where she asks him continuously about his attitudes towards women as he becomes more and more upset and confused by her line of questioning; she asks inappropriate questions such as: “do you have any mates who are women?” and “are you friends with women?”. These questions reflect how she is adultifying Jamie and de-childing him, as how many 13-year-old boys are friends with women? She explicitly says “women”, not “girls” – Jamie is shown reacting with confusion.

The most disturbing part comes when she asks him what he would like to do on a date with a girl, and he responds that he would like to take her to the cinema to see a film; she asks him if he would take her home afterwards or go for a walk, and he replies that he would not take her straight home. She asks him, “Would you want to kiss her?”, and he replies, looking uncomfortable: “Are you allowed to ask these questions?”. She does not answer, simply asking him: “What, you don’t discuss this in PSHE?”. From here, she abruptly launches into an unrelenting series of extremely sexual questions, going into graphic detail that is completely inappropriate coming from an adult towards a 13-year-old child. She does not even preface her line of questioning with a careful reassurance to Jamie that she is going to delve into this topic; she simply launches into it, taking him completely by surprise. She asks: “What do you think is the normal amount someone your age would do sexually with a girl or boy?”. When he responds, clearly taken aback, that he thinks “touching her… touching her bits”, she responds matter-of-factly: “Her chest? Her backside? Her vulva? Her vagina?”. When he replies, clearly embarrassed and uncomfortable, “maybe”, and then in a shaken voice, “are you sure you’re allowed to ask these questions?”, she completely ignores his question and his clear discomfort, and simply says to him: “so you think it’s normal for a heterosexual 13-year-old boy to have engaged in touching of a girl’s chest and backside. Above or below clothes?”. He again seems quite lost, sighing and saying hesitantly, “Below… Maybe. Above… Mostly”.

These questions are not only inappropriate but irrelevant to Jamie’s crime – there is no indication or allegation that there was a sexual element to what he did. Another reason why it makes for deeply uncomfortable viewing is because it feels like watching a child being punished by an adult for thoughts that are only in children’s heads because of the world that has been created for them by adults. We live in a hypersexualised culture saturated with music videos, films, advertisements, and songs – created by adults – that sexualise and objectify both men and women, and children consume all this content which they barely understand, from an early age. ‘Adolescence’ portrays this very effectively in how lost, confused, uncertain, and embarrassed Jamie clearly is while being asked to talk about this subject – and how innocent he still is underneath all that culturally-imposed corruption. This is illustrated in his response when she asks him what type of film he would like to see with a girl on a date; he ponders for a bit and then says in a very childlike manner, “a horror”. It is when her questions abruptly divert from his innocent responses and adopt an overtly sexual dimension that he becomes clearly out of his depth and distressed.

From here, as she continues this line of questioning, the conversation turns to how Jamie ended up looking at topless pictures of two girls in his year at school – something that was done without their consent and by many boys in the school year. When she asks him how looking at these pictures made him feel, and he responds incredulously if she is asking him if he got a “hard-on”, she simply repeats flatly: “I’m asking how it felt”. He looks very uncomfortable as he responds hesitantly, “I liked it”, and then asks in a clearly distressed tone of voice, “Are we allowed to talk like this?”. Again, she completely ignores his question and his obvious distress, simply asking him without missing a beat: “How does it feel looking at naked pictures of people?”. He looks shocked and embarrassed and responds in a shaken voice: “How do you think?”. Again, without missing a beat, she asks immediately as he barely finishes his sentence: “In particular, how does it make you feel looking at naked pictures of people you know?”. Her questions are invasive, graphic, mechanical in how she poses them – not a shred of empathy for his discomfort and distress, ignoring his own questions about whether she is even allowed to be asking these questions.

If it was a male psychologist treating a 13-year-old girl in this manner – relentlessly asking her very probing questions about her sexual urges and what sexual activity she would like to engage in with boys, asking her if she is “attracted to men” and “friends with men”, and repeatedly ignoring her distressed questions about whether he is allowed to be asking her these questions – this would be widely and correctly regarded as sexually abusive conduct. ‘Adolescence’ challenges us to reflect on our often biased assumptions about the vulnerability of boys and the potential for women to perpetrate harm against boys, by showing us the equivalent situation with the genders swapped.

Dr Nihara Krause MBE, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Chartered Member of the British Psychological Society, has noted that in this scene where the psychologist questions Jamie, “there were numerous leading questions on masculinity, which wouldn’t be the way to approach an assessment”, and that “to have not agreed on the number of assessments sessions and her clear role, so that there are no negotiated boundaries, seems very wrong in terms of an emotionally vulnerable boy getting attached / developing trust with someone (especially a woman).” Again, ‘Adolescence’ does a great job of showing how a vulnerable boy’s emotional needs are not being catered for or even considered by adults working within the criminal justice system.

Dehumanisation of Boys

I have previously written about Medomsley Detention Centre in County Durham, which was a detention centre for teenage boys that operated from the 1960s through to the late 1980s. It was extremely abusive, and the abuse there escalated after 1979 when Margaret Thatcher brought in her ‘short, sharp shock’ policy, which instituted brutal military regimes in junior male detention centres. Thatcher announced that these boys – whom she described as “violent young thugs” – would be corrected through harsh, militarised discipline. This dehumanisation of boys, which was centred around the perception of them as prone to harming others, led to appalling abuse of boys in Medomsley and other junior male detention centres at the time; including through the use of stress positions, beatings, and sexual violence. Most of the boys at Medomsley were ‘white working-class’ – which is the same demographic that Jamie and Ryan are from in the show. One former Medomsley victim described how when the boys were forced into stress positions and screamed at on the Parade Square, passersby would walk their dogs on the other side of the fence, see what was happening to these boys, and simply continue walking as if nothing was wrong. Both male and female adults in the detention centre were involved in subjecting boys there to sadistic sexual abuse.

One can find comments online contending that the victims of Thatcher’s ‘short, sharp shock’ deserved what they got, because they were “louts and thugs”. ‘Adolescence’ shines a light on how the language of “incels” – which is never properly defined by the adults in the show and is used in a careless manner by them – can be used similarly to adultify boys, strip them of their innocence, and reduce them entirely to negative and unpleasant characteristics. For example, one police officer simply says that the “incel” phenomenon means “the Andrew Tate shite” – thus not giving it a clear definition and simply associating it (and by extension the boys who are labelled thus) with a general sense of malignancy and dangerousness – and as her colleague then aggressively questions Ryan after grabbing his arm, without his parents present, one of the questions he asks him in a hostile manner while towering over him is: “what does the word ‘incel’ mean to you?”; Ryan responds with a confused and shaken, “what?”. This demonisation of boys paves the way for mistreatment of them, because in the minds of adults on a self-righteous crusade, it becomes justified as the targets are ‘deserving’ – when in actual fact, there is never any justification for child abuse, no matter what a child is thought to have done or has actually done. Olivia, a 21-year-old from Melbourne who works for a youth support organisation, put it very well in an article in The Guardian:

“After watching the show, I found myself reflecting on what the character, Jamie, really needed. It became clear that his pain wasn’t about being the most attractive or popular – it was about not feeling enough, not feeling seen. Young people don’t always need an adult to tell them what is wrong with social media or what to be afraid of. They already know that. What they need is for us to acknowledge the pain they’re carrying, whether it’s from a friend betraying them, or from the crushing feeling that no one is paying attention to them. They need to know that their feelings are valid, and that it’s OK to hurt. We shouldn’t shame the behaviour that comes from these feelings; we should understand it, and work with it.”

Keir Starmer has announced that he has watched ‘Adolescence’, and there are calls from Labour MPs to show it in Parliament and schools; Starmer has backed Netflix’s plan to show it for free in schools across the country – however, while Starmer and his government have been vocally praising the aspects of the show that highlight the very real problem of male misogyny, they do not thus far seem to have absorbed any of the messages in the show about the inhumane manner in which boys are often treated by the criminal justice system. 

The government has now shut down Young Offender Institutions for girls, acknowledging that girls in custody need “trauma-informed support” and care that caters to their “complex mental health and emotional needs” – no such policy has been implemented with regards to boys. The government has also resisted calls for a full public inquiry into the abuse that happened at Medomsley, which would be crucial in learning lessons about how we treat male youth offenders. On top of this – as a reflection of the government’s attitude towards vulnerable boys more broadly – the government has now completely defunded the only helpline that exists in the UK for male victims of sexual abuse, such that it now faces closure. It is evident that Starmer is jumping on a bandwagon by talking about how “we may have a problem with boys and young men that we need to address” – fuelling a gendered culture war is a way for him to distract from what his government is doing in terms of stripping benefits from disabled people, facilitating an ongoing genocide in Gaza, and now assisting the US’s brutal bombing campaign against Yemen. It also creates an ‘enemy within’ for the population to focus their fear and anger on, while the government gets away with these crimes – the collateral damage in this are vulnerable children who are scapegoated and turned into targets for the misdirected and exploited fear and anger of adults. What society as a whole needs to do is to start recognising that boys can be very vulnerable, and that they deserve support, empathy, and compassion – just as all children do. ‘Adolescence’ could be a powerful first step in that direction – if its important messages about the mistreatment of boys are recognised and taken seriously, rather than ignored.