Adopting a restorative approach to young offenders in Hong Kong: a public survey

Abstract

With declining faith in the retributive and rehabilitative models of the criminal justice system, the restorative justice (RJ) model has become increasingly favored. Most countries that practice RJ do so for juvenile offenders, and most of these are western countries. It is believed that the illegal acts of most juvenile offenders are committed impulsively. Hong Kong, as an international Asian city that is predominantly Chinese, may want to follow the global trend in adopting some types of RJ practice to deal with juvenile offenders. As public sanction/endorsement is one of the crucial criteria for the implementation of RJ, this article presents the findings of a telephone survey in Hong Kong to explore public support for the idea. It was found that the general public is in favor of the idea of RJ even though their knowledge of the local juvenile justice system is typically inadequate. Some preliminary recommendations are offered.

Keywords:

• restorative justice
• public survey
• juvenile offenders
• knowledge of juvenile justice system

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the Committee on Research and Conference Grants of the University of Hong Kong for funding the present study.

Notes

1. ‘Conferencing for juvenile offenders was introduced to Queensland on a trial basis as part of the 1996 amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act 1992. Participants normally include: the young person, a family member or caregiver, the victim or their representative together with a victim supporter, the referring police officer, and two conference convenors. Solicitors may also attend, though in the role of supporter and protector of rights rather than legal adviser, and do so in about 10% of cases. Police may refer a matter to a conference when the young person admits the offense and the victim consents; courts may make either an indefinite court referral to a conference without making a sentence order or alternatively may make a pre‐sentence referral’ (Strang, 2001, p. 15).