Risky business : mapping ethical landscapes and negotiating governance tensions when researching female offending

Whilst there is an excellent and growing body of literature around female criminality underpinned by feminist methodologies, the nitty gritty of the methodological journey is nowhere as well detailed as it is in the context of the Higher Degree Research (HDR) thesis. Thus the purpose of this paper is threefold: i) to explore a range of feminist methodologies underpinning 20 Australian HDR theses focussing on female criminality; ii) to identify and map the governance/ethics tensions experienced by these researchers whilst undertaking high risk research in the area of female offending; and iii) to document strategies drawn from negotiations, resolutions and outcomes to a range of gate-keeping issues. By exploring the strategies used by these researchers, this paper aims to: promote discussion on feminist methodologies; highlight pathways that may be created when negotiating the challenging process of accessing data pertinent to this relatively understudied area; contribute to a community of practice; and provide useful insights into what Mason & Stubbs (2010:16) refer to as “the open and honest reflexivity through the research process by describing the assumptions, and hiccups” for future researchers navigating governance landscapes.

Promising interventions for reducing Indigenous juvenile offending

Indigenous juveniles (those aged 10 to 16 years in Queensland and 10 to 17 years in all other jurisdictions) are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, and their over-representation becomes more pronounced at the most severe end of the system (ie in detention). Recent figures show that Indigenous juveniles are 24 times as likely to be detained in a juvenile correctional facility as non-Indigenous juveniles (Richards & Lyneham 2010). A variety of explanations for this over-representation have been proposed, including: • lack of access or disparate access to diversionary programs (Allard et al. 2010; Cunneen 2008; Snowball 2008); • systemic discrimination against Indigenous juveniles (eg police bias against Indigenous juveniles) (Cunneen 2008; Kenny & Lennings 2007); • inadequate resourcing of Aboriginal legal services (Cunneen & Schwartz 2008); and • genuinely higher levels of offending by Indigenous juveniles (Kenny & Lennings 2007; Weatherburn et al. 2003). A range of measures (including diversion and juvenile conferencing programs) has recently been implemented to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention, and minimise the contact of juveniles with the formal criminal justice system. Diversionary measures can only have a limited impact, however, and reducing offending and reoffending have been identified as critical factors to address if the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles is to be reduced (Allard et al. 2010; Weatherburn et al. 2003). While acknowledging that other measures designed to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles are important, this paper reviews the evidence on policies and programs that reduce offending by Indigenous juveniles in Australia. Where relevant, research from comparable jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and Canada, is also discussed.

The potential of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) to reduce child sexual abuse in Australia

This report addresses a number of issues relating to Circles of Support and Accountability, and their compatibility with the Australian criminal justice context, including: - What are Circles of Support and Accountability? - When and how did Circles of Support and Accountability emerge? - What forms do Circles of Support and Accountability take? - What is the purpose of Circles of Support and Accountability? - Where do Circles of Support and Accountability currently operate? - Why is it important for Australia to understand Circles of Support and Accountability? - What is the scope of the problem of child sexual abuse in Australia? - What is the research evidence about the effectiveness of Circles of Support and Accountability? - Some key issues for consideration. - Some limitations and potential “dangers” of Circles of Support and Accountability. - Recommendations for Australia. The report concludes that given the research evidence about Circles of Support and Accountability, Australia should build on its existing interest to more fully implement Circles of Support and Accountability, while taking the limitations of this criminal justice measure into consideration.

Children's exposure to domestic violence in Australia

Children's 'witnessing' or exposure to domestic violence has been increasingly recognised as a form of child abuse, both in Australia and internationally. Although it is difficult to accurately assess the scope of the problem, research has demonstrated that a substantial amount of domestic violence is witnessed by children. As this paper outlines, witnessing domestic violence can involve a range of incidents, ranging from the child 'only' hearing the violence, to the child being forced to participate in the violence or being used as part of a violent incident. In this paper, current knowledge about the extent of children's exposure to domestic violence in Australia is described, along with the documented impacts that this exposure can have on children. This includes psychological and behavioural impacts, health and socioeconomic impacts, and its link to the intergenerational transmission of violence and re-victimisation. Current legislative and policy initiatives are then described and some community-based programs that have been introduced in Australia to address the problem of children's exposure to domestic violence are highlighted. The paper concludes that initiatives focused on early intervention and holistic approaches to preventing and responding to children's exposure to domestic violence should be considered as part of strategies developed to address this problem.

Restorative justice and “Empowerment” : producing and governing active subjects through “Empowering” practices

During the last quarter-century, restorative justice has emerged as a widely utilised response to crime in Western nations. This article, which stems from a Foucauldian genealogy of restorative justice, argues that its embeddedness within the discourse of ‘‘empowerment’’ renders restorative justice a politically acceptable response to crime. ‘‘Empowerment’’, it is argued, is one of many conditions of emergence of restorative justice. The discourse of ‘‘empowerment’’ underpins restorative justice in tangible ways, and has informed legislation and policy in Western jurisdictions. This article seeks to problematise the taken-for-granted nature of this discourse. It argues that the discourse of ‘‘empowerment’’ produces restorative justice subjects who are increasingly governed and governable. As ‘‘empowering’’ restorative practices are targeted towards ‘‘disempowered’’ individuals and communities, concerns are raised about the potential of restorative justice to disproportionately impact upon socially marginalised populations and to increase social exclusion.

Taking victims seriously? : the role of victims' rights movements in the emergence of restorative justice

It is widely accepted in the literature on restorative justice that restorative practices emerged at least partly as a result of the recent shift towards recognising the rights of victims of crime, and increasing the involvement of victims in the criminal justice system. This article seeks to destabilise this claim. Although it accepts that there is a relationship between the emergence of a strong victims' rights movement and the emergence of restorative justice, it argues that this relationship is more nuanced, complex and contingent than advocates of restorative justice allow.

The journey of the role of religious faith in corrections : the case of circles of support and accountability

A renewal of interest has occurred in the relationship between religion, penal policy, and systems of criminal justice in different countries. This has been manifested in the development of religious programmes in prison and community settings. The subject has also precipitated a substantial body of empirical research, in addition to theorising the impacts of religion upon offending behaviour. However, specific faith‐based measures have attracted limited attention, mainly because of the empirical complexity of measuring the relationship between faith and behavioural change. These issues are addressed in this article by considering the recentlyemerged practice of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA).

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.

Trends in juvenile detention in Australia

This paper provides an overview of key trends in juvenile detention in Australia, based on data contained in the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC’s) Juveniles in Detention in Australia Monitoring Program database and then provides a discussion of two key trends in juvenile detention—the national increase in the proportion of juvenile detainees that is remanded (rather than sentenced) and the increase in the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention.

Talking the talk : therapeutic jurisprudence and oral competence

In Australian criminal justice systems, a wide range of pathways to sentencing and punishment exist alongside traditional court processes. In particular, therapeutic jurisprudence ('TJ') processes have emerged during the last quarter of a century and now occupy a key position in the criminal justice landscape. This article provides an introduction to TJ, highlighting in particular the emphasis it places on the active participation of offenders, before critically discussing offenders' capacity to engage with TJ processes. The article then summarises the research on the oral competence of offenders, and argues that offenders who lack oral competence may be disadvantaged in TJ processes. Finally, we provide an overview of the limited guidance that has been provided to TJ practitioners on how to maximise the participation of offenders with limited oral competence.

Bail and remand for young people in Australia : a national research project

Funded and endorsed by the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators, this is one of the first national scale research reports into the bail and remand practices for young Australians. A young person can be placed in custody on remand (ie refused bail) after being arrested by police in relation to a suspected criminal offence, before entering a plea, while awaiting trial, during trial or awaiting sentence. Although custodial remand plays an important role in Western criminal justice systems, minimising the unnecessary use of remand is important given the obligations Australia has under several UN instruments to use, as a last resort, youth detention of any kind. This research identifies trends in the use of custodial remand and explores the factors that influence its use for young people nationally and in each of Australia’s jurisdictions.

Misperceptions about child sex offenders

Sexual offending against children is a highly emotive issue. It is nonetheless important that public policy initiatives to prevent and/or respond to child sexual abuse are based on the available evidence about child sex offenders. This paper addresses five common misperceptions about the perpetrators of sexual offences against children. Specifically, the issues addressed include whether all child sex offenders are ‘paedophiles’, who sexually abuse children, whether most child sex offenders were victims of sexual abuse themselves, rates of recidivism among child sex offenders and the number of children sex offenders typically abuse before they are detected by police. The evidence outlined in this paper highlights that there are few black and white answers to these questions. Perpetrators of sexual crimes against children are not, contrary to widespread opinion, a homogenous group. Rather, there are a number of varied offending profiles that characterise child sex offenders. Gaining an understanding of the nuances of this offender population is critical if children are to be protected from sexual abuse.