Co-option, coercion and compromise: challenges of restorative justice in Victoria, Australia

Abstract

Restorative justice (RJ) encompasses a widely diverging set of practices whereby those most affected by crime are encouraged to meet, to discuss the effects of harms caused by one party to another, and to agree upon the best possible redress of harms when appropriate. In its inception in the late 1970s, RJ was conceptualized and developed as an alternative to formal criminal justice practices. Since this time, however, RJ has largely moved from being an alternative to criminal justice practices to an ‘alternative’ practice within criminal justice systems. This institutionalization has resulted in the significant growth of RJ practices, but has also resulted in RJ being used for criminal justice system goals that are at odds with the needs of victims or offenders. This paper examines the use of the Youth Justice Group Conferencing Program in Victoria, Australia. Drawing from interviews with conference conveners, our research highlights problems related to administrative ‘constraints’ and ‘co-options’ in conferencing in terms of referrals, preparation of conference participants, and victim participation. Following presentation of findings, we conclude with a discussion of implications for the use of RJ within a highly institutionalized setting.

Keywords:

• Restorative justice
• youth justice
• institutionalization
• Australia

Notes

1. In one interview, there were two conveners from the same organization at the same time.

2. According to the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic), magistrates are appointed by the Governor in Council.

3. It is important to note that the reason why the police did not attend might be their level of activity rather than their scepticism or lack of interest. The evaluation research on the FGC program in New South Wales, Australia, suggested that the police experienced difficulty attending conferences without substantial notice in advance (People & Trimboli, 2007).