Youth justice conferencing and police referrals: The gatekeeping role of police in Queensland, Australia

Youth justice conferencing in Queensland, Australia relies on the discretionary referral of young offenders by the police. The low rate of police referrals to conferencing is an ongoing concern for conference organizers. The research presented in this study explored Queensland police officers' training, experience, understandings of youth justice conferencing, and their individual discretionary policing style. The impact of these factors on officers' attitudes towards conferencing and their reported likelihood of referring to conference were examined. One hundred eighty-four Queensland police officers stationed in police regions where conferencing was available participated in the study. Of these officers, 15 percent had never heard of conferencing. Of officers who had heard of conferencing, 35 percent had received training, 21 percent had referred a young person to a conference, and 20 percent had attended a conference. Officers' understandings of conferencing were significantly related to their reported likelihood of referring a young person to a conference. The results indicated that to increase police referrals of young people to conferences, police need to be exposed (both through training and attendance) to the philosophy of and procedures involved in conferencing.     

The long-term impact of restorative justice programming for juvenile offenders

While extant research generally supports restorative justice as an alternative to traditional juvenile court processing, much of this research is limited to short-term follow-up periods examining only prevalence of reoffense. In addition, recent meta-analyses point to several study design characteristics, the impacts of which are not well understood. This study compared long-term outcomes of youth referred to restorative justice and traditional juvenile court processing using multiple outcome measures. Specifically, the authors examined the impact of restorative justice referral on prevalence of reoffense, number of later official contacts, and seriousness of later offending behavior over several follow-up periods up to four years post-referral.     

Family Conferencing for Juvenile Offenders: A Singaporean Case Study in Restorative Justice

Restorative justice has been or is being adopted in many parts of the world, including countries in Asia. In the case of Singapore, restorative justice was adopted by the court system in 1997 as its guiding philosophy in its approach towards juvenile offenders. This article traces the adoption of restorative justice by the Juvenile Court in Singapore and the use of family conferencing in the light of the principles of restorative justice. It concludes by suggesting areas where the family conferencing system in Singapore can be improved, and possible lessons for other jurisdictions considering adopting family conferencing.     

The effectiveness of reintegrative shaming and restorative justice conferences: focusing on juvenile offenders' perceptions in Australian reintegrative shaming experiments

This article examines the effectiveness of diversionary restorative justice (RJ) conferences through the eyes of juvenile offenders. In Australia, Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) are based on Braithwaite's theory of reintegrative shaming. Previous studies, although showing that RISE reported high levels of victim satisfaction and positive changes in the attitudes of offenders, also demonstrated that it has different outcomes for juvenile offenders depending on the type of offense with which they were charged. However, the effectiveness of RISE in terms of the offenders' perceptions has not been addressed, and the impact of the offenders' perceptions about RISE still remains under investigation. Using Australian data from RISE between 1995 and 1999, this article examines juvenile offenders' perceptions on preventing reoffending, repaying the victim and society, and the degree of repentance. The data were taken from interviews with juvenile offenders to measure their perceptions after the court or RISE processing. A comparison of standard court processing effects and RISE on juvenile offending, including property crime, shoplifting, and violent offenses, was undertaken. The results from this study were somewhat inconsistent with previous research. In this study, there was no significant relationship between RJ conference and the offenders' own perceptions on the prevention of future offending. However, it was found that there were treatment effects on repaying the victim, repaying society, and the degree of feeling repentance, and that younger offenders wanted to repay the victim/society and feel repentance.     

The value of restorative justice*

This paper starts by defining restorative justice and analysing its components. It looks at its practical benefits for the criminal justice system and explores the human benefits, not only for victims, but also for offenders, the families of both parties and the community. The experience of restorative justice in juvenile courts in New Zealand is examined in order to highlight the main benefits of the practice. Studies have shown that restorative justice can have positive effects such as reducing reoffending, providing an insight into offending, bringing together victims and offenders and repairing emotional harm. The paper concludes that although restorative justice on its own will not fix all social problems, it has many positive impacts on participants.     

Youth justice conferencing and reoffending

The literature on restorative justice and reoffending consists largely of comparative analyses of traditional and restorative interventions and suggests small but significant differences or no differences in reoffending. We gathered data from conferencing observations and police records to explore the variable effects of conference dynamics and offenders' characteristics in predicting future offending. We found that youthful offenders who were observed to be remorseful and whose outcomes were reached by consensus were less likely to reoffend. This finding suggests that when attention is focused on the benefits of conferencing, it is possible to identify elements of conferences that are associated with reductions in crime.     

Youth restorative justice conferencing: facilitator’s language – help or hindrance?

Youth crime is an ongoing concern in Australia. Victims, offenders and the community are all affected by crime and the current criminal justice approach seems both ineffective and inefficient. Restorative justice proponents have posited that their approach to justice through dialogue and negotiation in the conferencing process may be more effective than the traditional retributive justice. Restorative justice conferencing for young offenders is not, however, unfaultable in its ability to reduce the harm caused by crime or to reduce recidivism. The main focus of conferencing has been on the outcomes with limited attention paid to the process and its impact on a young offender’s sense of wrongdoing and remorse. There has been limited research undertaken into the oral competencies of young offenders in relation to their performance in conferencing, and equally limited studies on the specific use of language by facilitators. Other research has shown a coexistence of youth offending and developmental language and learning disabilities. The secondary study discussed in this paper reveals the language difficulties encountered by young offenders in the conferencing process. It is recommended that in order for young offenders to understand what they have been asked, to reflect on it, to express their thoughts and feelings, and for behavioural change to occur, the communication, both verbal and non-verbal, must be unambiguous, comprehensible and pitched at their individual demographic. More research is required into language use by conference facilitators and its impact on young offenders.     

Young Offenders Speak About Meeting Their Victims: Implications for Future Programs

Victim–offender mediation (VOM) programs have gained considerable popularity in juvenile courts, yet little is known about how these programs actually influence offenders. This paper explores young offenders’ subjective experiences of voluntary participation in a county‐run VOM program in Minnesota. The authors conducted in‐depth, qualitative interviews with seven young offenders (aged 15–24), and four sets of their parents, who had recently participated in a VOM session with their crime victim(s). Data analysis revealed varying motivations for the offenders’ participation in the sessions, a range of emotional consequences, and some potential for enduring behavior change. Based on these findings, the authors propose guidelines for future practice and research with young people involved in mediation, conferencing, and restorative justice programs.     

Stereotypes influence beliefs about transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders

Despite sharp drops in juvenile crime since the mid-1980s, punitive policies regarding juveniles who commit serious offenses still exist. We assessed beliefs about two such practices: transferring offenders from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice system, and subjecting them to sentences of life without parole (LWOP). We examined whether stereotypes about juvenile offenders – the extent to which people believe they are dispositionally violent superpredators versus economically and socially impoverished wayward youth – influence support for these policies. We measured 321 participants’ beliefs about the causes of juvenile crime and juveniles’ potential for recidivism and rehabilitation. Using vignette methodology and actual case facts, we described a 13-, 17-, or 21-year-old offender who murdered a stranger or abusive parent, and asked whether he should be transferred to criminal court and sentenced to LWOP. As endorsement of the superpredator stereotype increased, so did support for these practices. Offenders who murdered an abusive parent were shown more leniency. Older offenders were generally treated harsher, except by people with strong superpredator stereotypes who, on the issue of LWOP appropriateness, did not distinguish among juveniles of different ages. Findings suggest that stereotypes can influence judgments in cases involving juveniles and indirectly affect policy-making about juvenile offending.     

Making space for restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curricula and courses

Restorative justice, rooted in the practices of indigenous people across the globe, has grown exponentially in both theory and practice since its beginnings in Canada in the 1970s. Restorative justice has influenced the interactions between offenders and victims, helped community members address crime and develop self-efficacy, and changed the way some countries rebuild after a history of oppression. Despite these restorative justice influenced changes, many criminology and criminal justice programs pay scant attention to restorative justice in curricula. This paper will examine ways to include restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curriculum and the challenges involved in the process. The paper will then examine how the Law and Justice Department at Central Washington University has incrementally added restorative justice components to its curriculum, culminating most recently with the addition of a Community and Social Justice course. The paper will conclude with several examples of classroom activities and assignments that have helped connect students with the theory and practice of restorative justice.     

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF YOUTH AT RISK

During the 2006–2007 American Bar Association (ABA) year, a special ABA Presidential Youth at Risk Initiative has addressed several important topics: addressing the needs of juvenile status offenders and their families; foster children aging out of the foster care system; increases in girls, especially girls of color, in the juvenile justice system; the need to better hear the voices of youth in court proceedings affecting them; and improving how laws can better address youth crossing over between juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Lawyers are encouraged to use their skills to improve the systems addressing at‐risk youth and their families and to help facilitate coordination of youth‐related community efforts. Learning how to effectively communicate with youth is an important skill attorneys must learn. Through the Youth at Risk Initiative, the ABA has held continuing legal education programs, hosted community roundtables among youth‐serving stakeholders, and developed projects on: juvenile status offenders; lawyer assistance to youth transitioning from foster care; educating young girls on violence prevention, conflict resolution, and careers in law and justice; and provision of useful information to youth awaiting juvenile court hearings. New ABA policy has addressed services and programs to at‐risk youth, assuring licensing, regulation, and monitoring of residential facilities serving at‐risk youth, enhanced support for sexual minority foster and homeless youth, juvenile status offenders, and improving laws and policies related to youth exiting the foster care system.     

Predicting successful outcomes for serious and chronic juveniles in residential placement

In the past decade, juvenile justice agencies have become more reliant on objective risk scales based on an actuarial approach to assessing risk. Risk assessment scales are used as decision-making guides at multiple points in the juvenile justice system. However, little research has focused on assessment of more serious offenders facing removal from the community. Enormous benefits can be derived, both in public safety and cost savings, from successful interventions with these offenders. Identifying offenders most amenable to intervention and at lowest risk for offending upon leaving placement represents a significant challenge. In this study, a placement risk screen was developed that assesses amenability to treatment in a residential treatment program and later risk for adult criminality. The relationship between suspected risk factors, success in a residential treatment program, and adult offending was assessed in a population of 81 male delinquent youths. Many factors are believed to have a bearing on success in treatment and later offending behavior, but only a small number of these were statistically significant. The results suggest that success in residential placement can reduce future offending, but that youth should first be screened for amenability to the program so scarce resources can be conserved. The proposed placement risk screen can assist juvenile court judges, officers, and residential treatment staff in identifying youth most suitable for treatment and who represent a lower risk to the community.     

Restorative justice and reconviction

Proponents of restorative justice have suggested that its practices have the potential to reduce reoffending by those responsible for a harm. This article examines these claims using the results of two separate studies of the reconviction of offenders dealt with by processes that had restorative characteristics. The first study examines reconviction rates over'a'period'of'six years for a sample of young people who took part in family group conferences. The second study examines outcomes for samples of 100 offenders involved in each of two different community panel pre-trial diversion schemes for adults. One scheme involved offenders and victims meeting together with community panel members to determine outcomes that would repair harm to the victim and contribute to preventing reoffending. The second scheme involved Maori offenders meeting with representatives of their tribe in a setting with spiritual meaning for Maori. Those participating in both the community panel schemes were less likely to reoffend than matched samples of others who had committed similar offenses. There were also economic savings to the criminal justice system when offenders were dealt with by the panels compared to those dealt with by traditional methods. Taken together, these projects indicate that restorative processes and practices can have a positive impact on helping people to avoid reoffending.     

COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS IN COURT RECORDS AND SELF‐REPORTS*

Most knowledge about delinquency careers is derived from official records. The main aim of this paper is to compare conclusions about delinquency careers derived from court referrals with conclusions derived from self‐reports. Data are analyzed from the Seattle Social Development Project, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of 808 youths. Annual court and self‐report data were available from age 11 to age 17 for eight offenses. The prevalence of offending increased with age, in both court referrals and self‐reports. There was a sharp increase in the prevalence of court referrals between ages 12 and 13, probably because of the reluctance of the juvenile justice system to deal with very young offenders. The individual offending frequency increased with age in self‐reports, but it stayed constant in court referrals, probably because of limitations on the annual number of referrals per offender. There was significant continuity in offending in both court referrals and self‐reports, but continuity was greater in court referrals. The concentration of offending (and the importance of chronic offenders) was greater in self‐reports. An early age of onset predicted a large number of offenses in both self‐reports and court referrals. However, an early onset predicted a high rate of offending in court referrals but not in self‐reports, possibly because very young offenders who were referred to court were an extreme group. About 37% of offenders and 3% of offenses led to a court referral. The more frequent offenders were less likely to be referred to court after each offense, but most of them were referred to court sooner or later. There was a sharp increase between ages 12 and 13 in the probability of an offender and an offense leading to a court referral. It is concluded that criminal career research based on self‐reports sometimes yields different conclusions compared with research based on official records.     

An empirical assessment of the process of restorative justice

This study involved an empirical assessment of restorative justice processes with an application of a theoretical model proposed by Presser and Van Voorhis (2002). Their model identified three common procedural activities associated with restorative justice: dialogue, relationship building, and communication of moral values. This study utilized secondary data, consisting of observation and interview data, originally obtained by Sherman, Braithwaite, Strang, and Barnes (1999) for their Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999, to test the theoretical model. The results generally supported the hypothesis that the restorative justice program engaged offenders in dialogue, relationship building, and moral communication to a greater degree than traditional court proceedings. An unexpected result emerged in the interview data showing that violent offenders in the restorative justice program did not report a greater sense of relationship building than those in court proceedings. Possible explanations accounting for the anomaly are provided. Implications for policy and future studies derived from the findings are also discussed.     

Youth Crime: Whose Responsibility?

Responsibility is an increasingly important concept within both political and academic debates about youth justice. As an alternative approach to youth crime, restorative justice ideology has contributed to this debate. Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of repairing harm by encouraging offenders to address past behaviour and to become responsible for future actions. This article reflects on empirical findings from the author's research with 41 young offenders who were the subjects of Referral Orders, a purportedly restorative disposal. It considers how successfully the English youth justice system has adopted this approach, arguing that there is a significant difference between the theory of restorative justice and its use in practice. To some extent, New Labour's emphasis on the criminal justice system has missed the point behind the ideology of restorative justice and the wider opportunities it offers for a proactively restorative society.     

Responding to ADHD youth in the juvenile justice system

Juvenile justice professionals are increasingly faced with the task of understanding the role of psychiatric disorders in contributing to the behavior of juvenile offenders. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one such disorder that presents at a rate well beyond chance levels in youth in the juvenile justice system. This article provides an overview of the current symptom profile, diagnosis, cause and risk factors for ADHD. The interface of the juvenile justice system and youth with ADHD is described in all aspects beginning with detention through adjudication and disposition.     

Food security and secure food in the Anthropocene

Delinquency in middle class areas (and why it is low) has been a neglected topic in criminology. The book by Singer [1] advances knowledge about this topic, focussing on Amherst (NY), but also comparing it with the high crime area of Newark (NJ). The book discusses various community and neighborhood factors that might have contributed to the low crime rate in Amherst, but also emphasizes the importance of parenting and juvenile justice processing. The book highlights the need for more research on community/neighborhood effects on offending after controlling for individual and family factors. It also highlights the need for more research on self-reported delinquency versus court processing of middle class versus lower class youth, and on possible juvenile justice system biases after controlling for characteristics of offenses and offenders. Its main policy implications are that more programs and opportunities are needed for youth in lower class areas, there should be more efforts to increase collective efficacy in these areas, and juvenile court processing should be minimized as much as possible.     

Regenerative justice,beyond restoring

This paper outlines a new form of justice, called regenerative justice. Regenerative justice is the coupling of restorative justice with the notion of generative justice, which involves the explicit and intentional discovery and building of life meanings, as well as the consideration of the relationships that those meanings have with wrongdoing and ‘making things right’. This exploration comes about after first considering restorative justice, then providing a critique that uncovers potential blind spots in restorative practice. Logotherapeutic techniques, including: Socratic dialogue, attitude modulation, and dereflection, are used by therapists to help people discover meaning and purpose and have successfully assisted crime victims and offenders. Borrowing from these techniques and specific questioning approaches, restorative dialogue facilitators can enhance restorative practice, particularly in the phases of preparation for restorative dialogue and follow-up after restorative dialogue, by deliberately emphasizing meaning-building discussions (generative justice). Therefore, regenerative justice synthesizes the restoration of people and relationships with the generation of peaceful and healing meanings that can help stakeholders in wrongdoing make sense out of suffering and move forward with a sense of purpose. An example of this process is illustrated in a victim-offender dialogue in a crime of severe violence, where meaning-building can be particularly powerful.     

A Family Affair: The Juvenile Court and Family Violence Cases

Little attention has been devoted to studies of adolescent family violence offending, yet research on adult populations show that victim relationship may make a difference in how offenders are treated in the criminal justice system. Given that the intergenerational transmission of violence may operate through adolescent family violence, a detailed examination of these youth is warranted. Through an analysis of detained youth in a small northeastern state, this study examines differences in court treatment between family and non-family offenders. Family violence offenders are significantly more likely to be minor offenders and to be female than are non-family offenders. Results of logistic regression show that, all else being equal, family violence youth are treated more leniently by the court than non-family offenders. Finally, while most youth are released to community dispositions, there are no differences in court-ordered family counseling between family and non-family offenders. These findings point to areas of needed research on adolescent family violence offenders and larger policy questions about how such youth should be treated relative to other youth. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, CO.