Children’s Court Magistrates’ Views of Restorative Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence Measures for Young Offenders

Abstract

Restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence measures have recently been introduced into youth justice systems. As gatekeepers to these measures, Children’s Court magistrates play a crucial role in their success. However, little research has been undertaken on magistrates’ views of these measures. This article addresses this gap by presenting results of interviews undertaken with Children’s Court magistrates in New South Wales, Australia. Our research suggests that magistrates are enthusiastic about the philosophy of both restorative and therapeutic measures, but are reluctant to embrace them if they consider them under-resourced, poorly understood and/or poorly implemented. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Youth Justice, Community Safety and Children’s Rights in Australia

“…The International Journal of Children's Rights 30 (2022) 617-643 proceedings (see also Rap, 2016;Liefaard, 2016). Restorative justice conferencing has been praised for allowing young people to feel heard (Richards et al, 2017;Hayes and Daly 2004), however our research confirms that the concept of restoration may not be relevant to young people who themselves have been victims of crime or abuse (Lynch and Liefaard, 2020;Little et al, 2018;Suzuki and Wood, 2018;Lynch, 2010). Also, compliance is variable and the high rates of return to the youth justice system after the completion of community-based orders suggests that they are not addressing the causes of children's offending.…”

Themes in sentencing young adults charged with serious violent crime involving alcohol and other drugs

“…The separation of criminal justice processes makes it difficult to determine the extent to which sentencing recommendations are put into practice. In contrast to the Children’s court (Richards, Bartels, & Bolitho, 2017) and drug courts where mandatory treatment and close judicial oversight is the nature of the sentence (Weatherburn, 2008), rehabilitative treatment is not at the forefront in traditional correctional processes. The purpose of the courts and judges' objectives in sentencing differ from those of Corrections, which are more specific and targeted, ‘more about security and safety, tangible and measurable goals, and not so much about the philosophical aims of sentencing’ (Hall, 2017, p. 19).…”

Understanding Children’s Court Processes and Decisions: Perceptions of Children and Their Families

“…It is also encouraging that, with the aim of diverting young people from the system and resolving disputes in a less combative manner, therapeutic jurisprudence has been introduced in some youth justice systems both in Australia and internationally (Richards et al, 2017). Indeed, drawing on the behavioural sciences, including psychology and social work, this shift in approach is part of a worldwide drive to introduce therapeutic justice into mainstream court settings (King, 2009; Richardson et al, 2016).…”