Restorative justice, rhetoric, or reality? Conferencing with young offenders

Abstract

This article explores the contemporary introduction of restorative justice into the youth justice system in England. Specifically, the research investigates referral orders, and discusses how this new system is functioning ‘on the ground’ several years after implementation. The findings are based on a qualitative, in‐depth study of one Youth Offending Team. This research concludes that even following an ideological commitment to incorporate restorative justice principles into the youth justice system, the transition to a practical realization of those principles has not been entirely successful. At present, conferencing is falling short in two key areas – victim participation and lack of a relationship between community members and young offenders – due to poor community representation and training and to community members’ coercive tactics.

Keywords:

• restorative justice
• youth justice conferencing
• community‐based justice
• young offenders
• volunteerism

Notes

1. ‘Families’ necessarily include non‐family supporters such as guardians or appropriate adults.

2. With the exception of a few higher profile individuals who went officially ‘on the record’, all names and personal information have been changed to help protect the confidentiality and anonymity of those involved in the research.

3. See the Youth Justice Board (2002); Home Office (2003). In the Audit Commission (2004) report on the Oxfordshire Youth Offending Service, the introduction notes, “At this stage, we expect only a few YOTs to be performing satisfactorily”. The report then goes on to assess the overall performance of the Oxfordshire YOT as good. As of November 2005, the Oxfordshire YOT was highlighted on the YJB website as an example of good practice.

4. Christie’s (1977) seminar work argued that the conflict between victims and offenders had been ‘stolen’ by the State.

5. Crucial to any innovatory practice such as referral orders is that they are seen as legitimate by those who take part. Evidence suggests that participants who experience a fair process are more likely to accept the outcomes as legitimate. See Tyler (1990) and Hoyle, Young, and Hill (2002).

6. As indicated in the methods section, all data were collected in interviews. These answers represent a coding of the qualitative interview data.

7. See Strang (2002); Maguire and Shapland (1990); Dignan (2005).

8. This percentage is based on cases in which there was an identifiable victim.

9. Parents are required to attend panel meetings with their children when young offenders are under 17 years of age.

10. When speaking informally with panel members about all the cases they have participated in over the last year, both inside and outside this research sample, they reported that there had been no victims present at the panels or that they knew of merely one or two cases in which victims had participated. Therefore, these data appear to be representative of Oxfordshire at the time of this research.

11. For example, see Burnett and Appleton (2004); Crawford and Newburn (2003); Karp, Bazemore, and Chesire (2004).

12. Likewise Dhami and Joy (2007) found that a majority of community volunteers in Canada’s Restorative Justice – Victoria program were comprised of retired citizens.

13. In my sample, the panel members were 92% white and 59% female. However, Oxfordshire’s panel members are not entirely unrepresentative of the community; rather panel members are mostly representative of the population from which they are drawn. According to the United Kingdom’s 2001 Census, Oxfordshire’s population is 95% white, 51% female, and 34% between the ages of 40–69. However, while young people under the age of 20 represent 30% of Oxfordshire’s total population, anyone under 18 years of age is ineligible to serve on panels (Home Office 2005). As a result, by excluding ineligible portions of the total population, the proportion of people between the ages of 40–69 rises to 53%. Other research has reported similar results, that the majority of panel members are white, female, professionals over the age of forty: Crawford and Newburn (2002); Biermann and Moulton (2002). Interestingly, this pattern is not simply limited to the UK. A study of board members in Vermont’s Reparative Probation Program by Karp et al (2004) found similar results. Also refer to Dhami and Joy’s (2007) discussion of Canada’s Restorative Justice – Victoria program.

14. Daly (2006) argues that such expectations are perhaps too high and that such claims of what restorative justice can achieve are ‘astonishing’.

15. The panels only meet once every three months. Therefore, for a three month referral order, the panel convenes only twice, once at the initial meeting and once for the sign‐off; for a longer referral order, the young offender meets with the panel at least three times.

16. When agreed upon, the ‘program of behavior’ becomes a ‘youth offender contract.’ This contract should always include reparation to the victim or community as well as a program aimed to prevent future offending (Home Office 2002) and can incorporate any of a lengthy list of terms set forth in Section 8(2), including: reparation to an identified victim, a curfew, participation on specified programs of activity, staying away from specified persons and/or places (Home Office 1999). If no agreement can be reached, the offender is referred back to the court for re‐sentencing.

17. The remaining 12% felt they were only “sort of” involved in deciding what the contract should be.

18. The following excerpt, and all like it throughout this paper, combines observation of the panel meeting, subsequent interviews the young offender and the author’s own analysis of the case.

19. The remaining half forgot between one and three elements of the contract but remembered at least one element. The elements of the contract vary on an individual basis since each program is tailored to the individual young person. All that is required is reparation either directly to the victim or to the community.

20. Other research has reported similar results. Maxwell and Morris (1993); Newburn et al (2002); Maxwell, Kingi, Robertson, and Morris (2004).

21. Although panel members’ inclusion in the referral order process is intended to represent the community, because panel members preside over the panel, they are, nonetheless, perceived by all as representing the justice system.

22. Young and Hoyle (2003) reported similar results in their research on restorative cautioning. Specifically, they discovered that facilitators contributed on average half of all spoken words during a restorative session.

23. Such as Zehr, who states, “Justice has to be lived, not simply done by others and reported to us … Not simply justice but the experience of justice must occur” (1990, p. 203).

24. This percentage is equivalent to seven cases. Thus the analysis that follows in this section is of these cases.

25. This research did not specifically ask participants if they knew someone who had previously gone through a referral order. These percentages are based on comments young people made about friends or family in answering other questions. This percentage may not be an accurate representation but still provides a basis for discussion.

26. This percentage excludes two young people who never had a final panel meeting and were therefore not asked this question.

27. None of the Contacts claimed that referral orders would be beneficial to others. However, 40% noted that whether the referral order was beneficial or not depended on the individual young person. These percentages also exclude two young people who never had a final panel meeting.

28. The percentages given for the results presented in Tables 1 and 2 are based on the total number of cases for each set of interviews. Also, the percentages in the tables do not always add up to 100%. The other responses were a combination of “Don’t Know”, “Don’t Care”, or “Sort of / Some what”.