The news that Korrel Kennedy, 14, one of Sussex's worst young offenders, had breached his antisocial behaviour order (Asbo) has again raised the issue of whether the youth justice system is working.

Here, Tom Wye, who went from being a "17-year-old toe-rag" to becoming the Mayor of Worthing, argues for a major reform of Asbos.

LIKE most Government initiatives relating to antisocial behaviour, it is a case of "one hat does not fit all".

Some youngsters treat an antisocial behaviour order (Asbo) as a badge of honour and will breach it as many times as they can as a way of impressing their mates.

These youngsters are unlikely ever to be turned round if the Asbo is the only tool the police and local authorities use.

These young people will continue to wreak havoc in their community and unfortunately their antisocial behaviour is normally aimed at the most vulnerable members of our society and can continue for months and even years.

The fact an Asbo is not a cheap option can, in itself, be exasperating to those who have the job of collating the evidence to convince the judiciary that one is needed at all.

Hundreds of hours are taken up, often involving many agencies and witnesses (who can at times suffer intimidation) before a case is taken forward to the magistrates.

Even then, there is no guarantee it will be approved.

When approved they are often restricted to geographical areas with strict criteria about what will and will not be a "breach".

The fact that at times the magistrates will even refuse to let the identity of the young person involved be made public makes it even more difficult for breaches to be reported and dealt with.

I believe an Asbo, when approved by a magistrate, should be accompanied by an irrevocable "health warning" that any breach will be taken as meaning the young person is not prepared to mend his/her ways and is not suitable for such an order.

A more draconian means of making the young person mend their ways will therefore be necessary and should be implemented immediately after the first breach of the initial order.

In short we should look at a system of "one strike and you're out".

I am constantly being told an Asbo is not a form of punishment and I have to ask: "Why not?"

They are a direct result of individuals making innocent people's lives a misery. People who deserve and indeed want to be protected from such behaviour.

An element of punishment should and must be incorporated into the order if they are ever going to be effective.

There may be a case that an element of punishment is introduced after the first breach and is then "jacked up" for any further breaches.

Even people with limited intellect like the easy life and making them less comfortable may be the means needed to mend their ways.

There are many cases where an Asbo has had the required effect on the people involved.

Individuals, and indeed groups, have turned their lives round as a direct result of being subjected to an Asbo.

These are probably the better educated and normally socially responsible types who have gone through a short but chaotic period in their lives when they have lost sight of collective responsibilities and strayed from what is acceptable behaviour.

They quickly realise it is easier to conform and indeed their own quality of life actually improves by adhering to the order.

These are the people who will, and do, benefit from Asbos.

I was a 17-year-old "toe-rag" and confirm it was the threat of some severe punishment that made me realise that not only was I ruining my own life, but that of my family and friends as well.

Thankfully, I realised the life I was leading was going in only one direction - downwards - and I had to do something about it.

I took responsibility for my own actions and sorted myself out.

To this day, I know it was the threat of severe punishment that gave me the wake-up call.

Again this will not work with all people but it is certainly worth having it as an option.

People are individuals and must be treated as such but action to protect the innocent victims of antisocial behaviour must be a serious consideration for magistrates when considering what action to take against offending individuals.

The rights of the majority must have priority over those of the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour who know their rights but unfortunately not their responsibilities.

Do you agree with Tom Wye? Let us know below