“Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent” : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian contexts

In this article we survey relevant international literature on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders. In addition, as a starting point for needed cross-jurisdictional research, we focus on different approaches that have been taken to making parents responsible for youth crime in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about parental responsibility, the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. One unexpected finding of our literature survey is the relatively sparse attention given to the issue of parental responsibility for youth crime in legal and criminological literature compared to the attention it receives in the media and popular-public culture. In Part I we examine the different views that have been articulated in the social science literature for and against parental responsibility laws, along with arguments that have been made about why such laws have been enacted in an increasing number of Western countries in recent years. In Part II, we situate our comparative study of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches within a broader discussion of arguments about the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. In Part III, we identify and examine the scope of different parental responsibility laws that have been enacted in Australia and Canada; noting significant differences in the manner and extent to which parental responsibility laws and policies have been invoked as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. In our concluding discussion, in Part IV, we try to speculate on some of the reasons for these differences and set an agenda for needed future research on the topic.

A critical analysis of sperm donation practices : the personal and social effects of disrupting the unity of biological and social relatedness for the offspring

This thesis critically analyses sperm donation practices from a child-centred perspective. It examines the effects, both personal and social, of disrupting the unity of biological and social relatedness in families affected by donor conception. It examines how disruption is facilitated by a process of mediation which is detailed using a model provided by Sunderland (2002). This model identifies mediating movements - alienation, translation, re-contextualisation and absorption - which help to explain the powerful and dominating material, and social and political processes which occur in biotechnology, or in reproductive technology in this case. The understanding of such movements and mediation of meanings is inspired by the complementary work of Silverstone (1999) and Sunderland. This model allows for a more critical appreciation of the movement of meaning from previously inalienable aspects of life to alienable products through biotechnology (Sunderland, 2002). Once this mediation in donor conception is subjected to critical examination here, it is then approached from different angles of investigation. The thesis posits that two conflicting notions of the self are being applied to fertility-frustrated adults and the offspring of reproductive interventions. Adults using reproductive interventions receive support to maximise their genetic continuity, but in so doing they create and dismiss the corresponding genetic discontinuity produced for the offspring. The offspring’s kinship and identity are then framed through an experimental postmodernist notion, presenting them as social rather than innate constructs. The adults using the reproductive intervention, on the other hand, have their identity and kinship continuity framed and supported as normative, innate, and based on genetic connection. This use of shifting frameworks is presented as unjust and harmful, creating double standards and a corrosion of kinship values, connection and intelligibility between generations; indeed, it is put forward as adult-centric. The analysis of other forms of human kinship dislocation provided by this thesis explores an under-utilised resource which is used to counter the commonly held opinion that any disruption of social and genetic relatedness for donor offspring is insignificant. The experiences of adoption and the stolen generations are used to inform understanding of the personal and social effects of such kinship disruption and potential reunion for donor offspring. These examples, along with laws governing international human rights, further strengthen the appeal here for normative principles and protections based on collective knowledge and standards to be applied to children of reproductive technology. The thesis presents the argument that the framing and regulation of reproductive technology is excessively influenced by industry providers and users. The interests of these parties collide with and corrode any accurate assessments and protections afforded to the children of reproductive technology. The thesis seeks to counter such encroachments and concludes by presenting these protections, frameworks, and human experiences as resources which can help to address the problems created for the offspring of such reproductive interventions, thereby illustrating why these reproductive interventions should be discontinued.