Under the 'Crime and Disorder Act' (1998) anti-social behavior orders are civil orders made against a person or persons who have engaged in anti-social behaviour, which includes while intoxicated or threatening, graffiti and vandalism, or playing loud music at night. However, this classification is challenged by precedents (2009: 9) which argue that there is no "established definition of what constitutes antisocial behaviour". Yates (2009), argues that the orders are more about “preventing and “controlling the movements and behaviors of young people” which were once considered “relatively minor acts of youth transgression” (Yates, 2009:4). That aside , an ASBO can be applied for by local authorities, police forces (including the British Transport Police) and registered social owners, but not by members of the public and can last for a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years. Although a young person does not receive a criminal record with an ASBO, breaching the order could result in a prison sentence of up to five years, without the right to evidence to refute the claims made by the appellant Jones (2001:8). The ASBO may then be brought before a judge and, if the judge decides that the matter cannot be resolved immediately, he or she may remand the defendant in custody, without the young person being able to refute the complainant's claims, (subsection (3) ( (A) or (B) set out in section 9 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014). The Crown Prosecution Service (2014) states that anti-social behavior orders are "not intended to punish the individual" and are designed to be "preventative", not "punitive", however it can be argued that the introduction of the Anti- Soc... middle of paper... debt, family breakdown, loss of employment and social stigma", which has raised "important issues" about a growing number of young people who have "multiple social needs". It is argued that "many young people continue to receive no support once they have completed their sentence" and as a result the risk of reoffending is largely increased, which has led to a failure to reduce levels of reconviction, as Solomon and Garside (2005:52) argue, is “a reflection of the lack of services available to children and young people once they leave the custody or supervision of a YOT, as well as wider socio-structural factors.” On reoffending, the Government has failed to make any progress. All targets were missed, which represents a significant failure for a system designed to reduce the likelihood of further convictions.'Solomon and Garside (2007:52)