![]() If, as evidenced and consistently outlined in guidance, policy and research, the fundamental principle of inclusivity and victim participation are imperative to RJ, then to what extent are YOTs in England and Wales ‘fully’ restorative? Drawing upon the findings of a larger empirical study, this article specifically examines the use of RJ in seven YOTs in England and Wales to demonstrate that RJ has not been fully integrated into practice nor widely embedded into YOT culture. ![]() RJ should be the underlying principle for all youth justice disposals and victims must be invited to be part of the process. Since the establishment of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in England and Wales in 1999, all victims of youth crime, must, in accordance with national instruments, be consulted by YOTs as to their wishes and provided with the opportunity to get involved in a restorative justice (RJ) initiative. The Children's Hearings were hailed as actively contributing to the reduction in the number of youths being formally processed through the youth court system (in comparison, the numbers in England and Wales rose, as stated above) (Bottoms and Dignan 2004). Whilst not truly restorative (as hearings did not involve the victim), the hearings were out-of-court, community-led hearing panels that can be loosely classed as 'partly restorative' (McCold 2000) as they incorporate and bring together both the offender and the community to deal with the offence (community involvement through the use of lay members of the public as panel members). In Scotland, a far more welfare-focused approach to youth justice was being taken through the use of the welfare tribunal system of Children 's Hearings (established in the 1970s and1980s), based upon the principles of communitarianism, participation and diversion to divert young offenders away from the formal court system (Bottoms and Dignan 2004). A three-fold typology ofrestorative practices based upon victim reparation, offender responsibility, and communities-of-carereconciliation is proposed which places the Purist model within a holistic approach and distinguishesfully restorative from partly restorative practices. The cornerstone of the Maximalist model,court-imposed ‘restorative sanctions’, is criticized as a non-restorative practice. The Maximalist model’s assumed roles for community and society as direct stakeholdersis shown to incorporate both retribution and treatment goals. The author defends the ‘diversionist perspective’ and the process definition ofrestorative justice. ![]() ![]() A Purist model of restorativejustice based on a voluntary cooperative approach is proposed, which is shown to be holistic in responseto stakeholders needs. An analysis of stakeholders needs is proposed as atheoretical structure to evaluate the restorativeness of different models. Advocates of the Maximalist model have been critical of a voluntary process-baseddefinition and proposed a more expansive definition. This paper engages the efforts to develop a mid-range theory to complete the vaguely defined paradigmof restorative justice. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |