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.

Pre-sentence Report, Magisterial Discourse and Agency in Youth Courts in England

This article draws on interviews with Youth Court magistrates to examine if and how discourses, strategies and technologies of risk governance have affected Youth Court magistrates in England and Wales. The aim of the article is to detail the complex relationship between magisterial agency in decision making and youth justice policies which focus on risk control and management. The article demonstrates that, contrary to what might be assumed from the youth and risk governance theoretical literature, Youth Offending Team risk assessments form only one part of the information used by magistrates to explain young people’s presence in courts. This article concludes that magisterial decision making is framed not by formal, expert assessments of risk, but by magistrates’ claims that they are ‘knowing outsiders’, who through judicious use of information presented to them and their own life experiences are able to make objective judgements about both the risk assessments authored by Youth Offending Teams and the young lawbreakers before them.

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.