Illusions of Difference: Comparative Youth Justice in the Devolved UK

Surprisingly, there has been little or no systematic research to date that has explored the significance of UK devolution for youth justice policy and practice. This article explores the extent of differential justice in the United Kingdom, particularly as it is expressed in the myriad action plans, criminal justice reviews, frameworks for action, delivery plans and offending strategies that have surfaced since 1998. In particular, the article considers how far policy convergence and divergence are reflected through the discourses of risk, welfare, restoration and children's rights in the four administrations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For comparative criminology, the United Kingdom offers a unique opportunity to explore how international and national pressures towards convergence and/or divergence can be challenged, rebranded, versioned, adapted or resisted at sub-national and local levels.

Rethinking Youth Prostitution: National Provision at the Margins of Child Protection and Youth Justice

In March 2000, the Department of Health and the Home Office issued guidance fundamentally altering policy and practice with regard to young people in prostitution. 1 Instead of being arrested and punished for prostitution-related offences, those under 18 years old were to be thought of as children ‘in need’ and offered welfare-based interventions. The practice that has developed in the last three years has offered interventions that are located within both child protection and youth justice work. This article examines these changes in order to generate insights about the changing nature of youth justice. In particular, it is argued that the drive to manage the risks posed by young people in prostitution to specific organisations, takes precedence over either the desire to care for, or the demand to punish them. Through an analysis of how practitioners and policy makers responsible for implementing this new approach to youth prostitution talk about ‘risk’ and ‘responsibility’, ‘liability’, ‘protection’ and ‘punishment’, the article argues that the contradiction between care and control has been re-interpreted, such that there is noticeable blurring of the boundaries between welfare and punishment at the margins of youth justice work.

In search of a youth justice pedagogy? A commentary

Purpose – This paper seeks to look at youth justice (YJ) personnel training and education and the recommendations about it made in Time for a Fresh Start. Design/methodology/approach – The pedagogic tensions that currently shape YJ training are described – particularly those around the question of instructionalism vs education and what “specialist” means in the context of YJ. Findings – The paper suggests that the authors of Time for a Fresh Start missed the opportunity to better serve the public and young people's interests by neither acknowledging the pedagogic tensions nor articulating what a “specialist” “YJ” professional training can mean in twenty-first century England and Wales. Originality/value – The paper highlights an urgent need for an open debate between academics, practitioners and policy makers about YJ pedagogy.

Submission to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee - Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

This submission addresses the Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 which has as its objectives (1) the introduction of a Boot Camp Order as an option instead of detention for young offenders and (2) the removal of the option of court referred youth justice conferencing for young offenders. As members of the QUT Faculty of Law Centre for Crime and Justice we welcome the invitation to participate in the discussion of these issues which are critically important to the Queensland community at large but especially to our young people.

Re-imagining youth justice

Persistent high levels of recidivism among young offenders (Luke and Lind 2002; Weatherburn et al. 2012) and the over‐representation of Indigenous young people (Cunneen and White 2011; Snowball 2008; Tauri 2012) have long been features of youth justice in Australia. Other problems – such as the increased rates of young people committing sex offences (Dwyer 2011; O’Brien 2010), increasing numbers of young people criminalised for new offences such as ‘sexting’ (Lee and McGovern 2013), and increasing numbers of young female offenders being drawn into youth justice systems (Carrington 2006; Carrington and Pereira 2009) – have emerged more recently. In this paper, we draw on the concept of ‘imaginary penalities’ (Carlen 2010) to argue these chronic problems are partly informed by ‘imaginary’ understandings of how and why young people (re)offend; reflect ‘imaginary’ understandings of what works to address young people’s (re)offending; and reflect ‘imaginary’ ideals about the primary purposes of the youth justice system. We acknowledge up front that answers to these questions require a great deal of new empirical research. This paper is only a beginning that sets out exactly what such an ambitious project might look like.

Submission : Proposed reforms to youth justice in Queensland

The proposed reforms to the youth justice system in Queensland are premised on the assumption that offending by young people is increasing. We noted (Carrington, Dwyer, Hutchinson and Richards 2012, 8) in a recent submission about the boot camps legislation that: "Statistics suggest that this concern is not warranted. Certainly studies show that ‘rates per 100,000 juveniles in detention in Queensland have been relatively stable compared with the national trend’ (Richards 2011) and that rates of detention of child offenders have declined generally in Australia over the last three decades. Youth offending statistics are affected by the diversion options used by the police, as well as by the numbers and levels of policing, and any special strategies such as Operation Colossus in the northern part of the state. ‘Community concern’ about crime does not always reflect the true rates of crime across Queensland. Policy should be based on valid evidence, not on ‘community concern’. With stable numbers of young people being detained in Australia, the research clearly suggests that youth offending is not escalating."...

Blurred lines : reconsidering the concept of ‘diversion’ in youth justice systems in Australia

This article revisits ‘diversion’ in the context of youth justice in Australia. Although ‘diversion’ is omnipresent in youth justice, it is rarely subject to critical examination. This article raises four interrelated questions: what young people are to be ‘diverted’ from and to; whether young people are to be ‘diverted’ from the criminal justice system or from offending; whether young people are to be ‘diverted’ from criminal justice processes or outcomes; and whether ‘diversion’ should be considered distinct from crime prevention and early intervention. The article concludes that the confusion about youth ‘diversion’ may foster individualised interventions in young people’s lives.