Returning to the practices of our ancestors? Reconsidering Indigenous justice and the emergence of restorative practices

Restorative practices have often been considered both as emerging from the customs of Indigenous peoples, and ways of responding to crime that might be most suitable for Indigenous individuals and communities. This paper, which consists of two parts, will reconsider these claims from a critical perspective. The first part of the paper draws on my Ph.D. research on the emergence of restorative justice in Western criminal justice systems. It will argue that although many advocates of restorative justice uncritically and unproblematically accept that restorative practices emerged from the customs of Indigenous peoples, the relationship between Indigenous justice customs and the emergence of restorative justice is much more nuanced than proponents imply. The paper will examine, therefore, the legitimating rationalities associated with the diverse historical ‘truths’ obscured in advocates’ accounts of the role of Indigenous customs and the emergence of restorative justice. The second section draws on the findings of recent research undertaken at the Australian Institute of Criminology, and will present data on the numbers of Indigenous juveniles who participate in restorative conferences in each jurisdiction. These data will be used to elucidate the disparity between the rhetoric or ‘promise’ of restorative justice, and its apparent impact in relation to Indigenous juveniles. This paper will conclude with a consideration of the continued relevance of restorative justice for Indigenous young people in Australia.

Police-referred restorative justice for juveniles in Australia

This preliminary paper provides an overview of the legislative and policy context of restorative justice measures for juveniles in each Australian state and territory, highlighting the diverse characteristics of current restorative practices. Further, it provides an indication of the numbers and characteristics of juveniles who are referred by police to restorative justice measures and the offence types for which they are most commonly referred. A number of key points about the application of restorative justice measures to juveniles in Australia’s jurisdictions are highlighted, including that juveniles were referred to conferences primarily for property crimes and that Indigenous juveniles comprised higher proportions of those sent to court than to conferencing. This paper argues that more detailed data on the offending histories, offence types and offence seriousness of juveniles referred by police to restorative justice processes would enable a more finely-grained analysis of restorative justice for juveniles in Australia.

Unlikely friends? Oprah Winfrey and restorative justice

In recent years, restorative justice has surfaced as a new criminal justice practice in diverse parts of the world. Often, it appears that these practices have emerged in complete isolation from one another. This prompts us to question what it is that has allowed restorative justice to become an acceptable way of dealing with criminal justice issues, or in Foucault's terms, the ‘conditions of emergence’ of restorative justice. This article explores one of numerous potential ‘conditions of emergence’ of restorative justice — the discourses of the ‘therapeutic’, ‘recovery’, ‘self-help’ and ‘New Age’ movements. It aims to investigate the ways in which the taken-for-granted nature of these discourses have, in part, permitted restorative practices to become an approved way of ‘doing justice’.

What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders?

Historically, children in criminal justice proceedings were treated much the same as adults and subject to the same criminal justice processes as adults. Until the early twentieth century, children in Australia were even subjected to the same penalties as adults, including hard labour and corporal and capital punishment (Carrington & Pereira 2009). Until the mid-nineteenth century, there was no separate category of ’juvenile offender’ in Western legal systems and children as young as six years of age were incarcerated in Australian prisons (Cunneen & White 2007). It is widely acknowledged today, however, both in Australia and internationally, that juveniles should be subject to a system of criminal justice that is separate from the adult system and that recognises their inexperience and immaturity. As such, juveniles are typically dealt with separately from adults and treated less harshly than their adult counterparts. The United Nations’ (1985: 2) Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the ‘Beijing Rules’) stress the importance of nations establishing a set of laws, rules and provisions specifically applicable to juvenile offenders and institutions and bodies entrusted with the functions of the administration of juvenile justice and designed to meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders, while protecting their basic rights. In each Australian jurisdiction, except Queensland, a juvenile is defined as a person aged between 10 and 17 years of age, inclusive. In Queensland, a juvenile is defined as a person aged between 10 and 16 years, inclusive. In all jurisdictions, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. That is, children under 10 years of age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions.

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.

What's Queer About Queer Criminology?

The term ‘‘queer criminology’’ is increasingly being used in criminological discussions, though there remains little consistency with regard to how it is used and to what it refers. It has been used broadly to describe criminological research on LGBTQ people and their interactions with the justice system, more specifically to describe those analyses that identify and critique the heteronormative knowledges or binarized understandings of gender and sexuality within criminal justice research, and also to label theoretical and conceptual pieces that argue for a greater connection between queer theory and criminology. However, there are some important distinctions between ‘‘queer criminology’’ and ‘‘queer theory’’ more widely, particularly the deconstructive approaches of the latter. This chapter explores the engagements between queer theory and ‘‘queer criminology,’’ specifically focusing on whether ‘‘queer criminology’’ adopts an understanding of ‘‘queer’’ as an attitude, and as signifying a deconstructive project—a position that features in many strands of queer theoretical work. It will argue that while there are different ways of engaging with ‘‘queer’’ as a concept, and that each of these engagements produces different kinds of ‘‘queer’’ projects, ‘‘queer criminology’’ does not always engage with the deconstructive approaches drawn from queer theory. Ultimately, this can limit the ways that ‘queer criminologists’’ are able to address injustice.

Democracy and the Project of Liberal Inclusion

Democracy is a multi-dimensional concept, ranging from definitions based exclusively on institutional frameworks (for example, Held, 2005, Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub and Limongi, 2000) to complex and integrated measures that include political and civil rights, democratic practices, values and, finally, a diverse set of institutional arrangements in society, including welfare, education, industrial relations and the legal system (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005, Jaggers and Gurr, 1995, O'Donnell, Cullel and Iazetta, 2004). This reflects the range of and distinction between merely formal electoral democracy and genuinely 'effective liberal democracy' (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005: 149), where democracy is firmly embedded not only in its institutions but in the values of its citizenry. Evidence from cross-national research confirms that formal democratic institutions, different dimensions of effective democracy, and democratic values are indeed strongly linked (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005: 154, Jaggers and Gurr, 1995: 446). Democracy is more than just a set of institutions, rules and mechanisms: it is a set of core values engrained in the 'lived experience' of its citizens. Core values of democracies are individual autonomy and egalitarianism, tolerance of diversity, and freedom from oppression for both individuals and institutions. Democracies restrain their governments by the rule of law and grant its citizens equal access to and equal treatment by legal institutions. Among these institutions, criminal justice and the treatment of those who violated rules and regulations represent sensitive seismographs for the quality of effective democracies, and the ways how democracies realise their core values.

Against Rehabilitation; For Reparitive Justice

The difficulties of re-imagining the possible relationships between crime and justice in capitalist societies, and imagining the possible meanings of democracy in societies characterised by gross inequalities of knowledge, and exclusion of the majority from political decisions are well known. One such difficulty stems from the impossible necessity of maintaining stances of both constant reform and constant critique (see Carlen, 2012). Confronted with economic and cultural inequalities which routinely deny ideals of justice and democracy, there can be a temptation to suppress (or bracket-off) troubling knowledge of criminal justice's and democracy's maligned underbellies and instead talk 'as if' criminal justice's ideal play of governance is always and already realised in its rhetoric. In some senses, this 'as if' talk is aspirational and it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise if more just conceptions of criminal justice and more democratic forms of democracy are to be conceived. However, when, as often happens, aspirational criminal justice concepts become routinised and acted upon as if they can be realised without fundamental social change, they become penal imaginaries, part of a taken-for-granted ideological baggage which, because it is taken-for-granted, obstructs critique (see Carlen, 2008). One such penal imaginary is the concept of rehabilitation, a concept which has a long history of justifying almost every kind of non-lethal response to lawbreaking and which is currently being reborn yet again in theories of criminal desistance and anti-prison campaigns as well as in the more invidious rehabilitation industry with its sales of programmes for cognitive reform.

Review essay : Crime, risk and money : "The Currency of Justice : Fines and Damages in Consumer Societies" and "Crime and Risk", both by Pat O'Malley

Sharing some closely related themes and a common theoretical orientation based on the governmentality analytic, these are nevertheless two very different contributions to criminological knowledge and theory. The first, The Currency of Justice: Fines and Damages in Consumer Societies (COJ), is a sustained and highly original analysis of that most pervasive yet overlooked feature of modern legal orders; their reliance on monetary sanctions. Crime and Risk (CAR), on the other hand, is a short synoptic overview of the many dimensions and trajectories of risk in contemporary debate and practice, both the practices of crime and the governance of crime. It is one of the first in a new series by Sage, 'Compact Criminology', in which authors survey in little more than a hundred pages some current field of debate. With this small gem, Pat O'Malley has set the bar very high for those who follow. For all its brevity, CAR traverses a massive expanse of research, debates and issues, while also opening up new and challenging questions around the politics of risk and the relationship between criminal risk-taking and the governance of risk and crime. The two books draw together various threads of O'Malley's rich body of work on these issues, and once again demonstrate that he is one of the foremost international scholars of risk inside and outside criminology.

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."...

The promise of justice reinvestment

Abstract: This article examines the notion and practice of Justice Reinvestment (‘JR’), an emerging approach addressing the high social and economic costs of soaring incarceration rates. JR invests in public safety by reallocating dollars from corrections budgets to finance education, housing, healthcare, and jobs in high-crime communities. Key distinguishing features of JR (including justice and asset mapping, budgetary devolution and localism, and the desirability of bipartisanship) are briefly outlined, followed by discussion of its recent emergence and application in the United States, and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. The prospects for the adoption of JR approaches in Australia are then considered, with particular reference to the high imprisonment rates of Indigenous people. If JR is to be promoted in the Australian context it is important that it be subject to critical scrutiny and therefore some of the key problems are briefly outlined, before a conclusion which emphasizes the potential benefits of JR.

Criminal Laws : Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process in NSW [Fifth Edition]

"The success of Criminal Laws lies both in its distinctive features and in its appeal to a range of readerships. As one review put it, it is simultaneously a "textbook, casebook, handbook and reference work". As such it is ideal for criminal law and criminal justice courses as a teaching text, combining as it does primary sources with extensive critical commentary and a contextual perspective. It is likewise indispensable to practitioners for its detailed coverage of substantive law and its extensive references and inter-disciplinary approach make it a first point of call for researchers from all disciplines. This fifth edition strengthens these distinctive features. All chapters have been systematically updated to incorporate the plethora of legislative, case law, statistical and research material which has emerged since the previous edition. The critical, thematic, contextual and interdisciplinary perspectives have been continued."--Publisher's website. Table of Contents: 1. Some themes -- 2. Criminalisation -- 3. The criminal process -- 4. Components of criminal offences -- 5. Homicide: murder and involuntary manslaughter -- 6. Defences -- 7. Assault and sexual assault -- 8. Public order offences -- 9. Drugs offences -- 10. Dishonest acquisition -- 11. Extending criminal liability: complicity, conspiracy and association -- 12. Sentencing and penality.

Prison rates, social democracy, neoliberalism and justice reinvestment

This chapter will begin with a brief summary of some recent research in the field of comparative penology. This work will be examined to explore the benefits, difficulties and limits of attempting to link criminal justice issues to types of advanced democratic polities, with particular emphasis on political economies. This stream of comparative penology examines data such as imprisonment rates and levels of punitiveness in different countries, before drawing conclusions based on the patterns which seem to emerge. Foremost among these is that the high imprisoning countries tend to be the advanced western liberal democracies which have gone furthest in adopting neoliberal economic and social policies, as against the lower imprisonment rates of social democracies, which variably have attempted to temper free-market economic policies in various ways. Such work brings both social democracy and neoliberalism into focus as issues for, or subjects of, criminology. Not in the sense of new ‘brands’ of criminology but rather as an examination of the connections between the political projects of social democracy and neoliberalism, and issues of crime and criminal justice. In the new comparative penology, social democracy and neoliberalism are cast in opposition, simultaneously raising the questions of to what extent and how adequately both social democracy and neoliberalism have been constituted as subjects in criminology and whether dichotomy is the only available trope of analysis?