Experiences of Youth Justice: Youth Justice Discourses and Their Multiple Effects

Abstract

Interventions within youth justice systems draw on a range of rationales and philosophies.Traditionally demarcated by a welfare/justice binary, the complex array of contemporary rationales meld different philosophies and practices, suggesting a mutability that gives this sphere a continued (re)productive and felt effect. While it may be increasingly difficult to ascertain which of these discourses is dominant in different jurisdictions in the UK, particular models of justice are perceived to be more prominent (Muncie, 2006). Traditionally it is assumed that Northern Ireland prioritises restoration, Wales prioritises rights, England priorities risk and Scotland welfare (McVie, 2011; Muncie, 2008 Muncie, , 2011. However, how these discourses are enacted in practice, how multiple and competing rationales circulate within them and most fundamentally how they are experienced by young people is less clear. This paper, based on research with young people who have experienced the full range of interventions in the youth justice system in Northern Ireland examines their narratives of 'justice'. It considers how different discourses might influence the same intervention and how the deployment of multiple rationalities gives the experience of 'justice' its effect.

Punishment, Youth Justice and Cultural Contingency: Towards a Balanced Approach

“…It was for this reason that it was considered important to question practitioners about what they felt they were trying to achieve within the system, asking questions about their aims, those of others within the system and their perceptions of change. The results do little to contradict existing arguments about the complexity and messiness of contemporary youth justice systems (Goldson and Muncie, 2009;Goldson and Hughes, 2010;Carr and McAllister, 2014). While elements of convergence were apparent, there was also a sense in which the interview data reflected the distinct paths forged by the three jurisdictions in the youth justice field.…”

“…In this regard, practitioner data reflected some of the dangers associated with welfarism and a restorative approach such as: a lack of consistency and due process; disproportionate punishments and low entry thresholds; and an excessive focus on engagement and the 'character' of the offender (Goldson and Muncie, 2009;McAllister and Carr, 2014;McNeill et al, 2009 …”

Toward a Communication Perspective of Restorative Justice: Implications for Research, Facilitation, and Assessment

“…Second, it risks glossing over other hypothesized consequences of RJ practices that are less concrete, such as healing, closure, growth, dignity, and sense of control (Braithwaite, ; Johnstone, ; Morris, ; Umbreit et al., ; Zehr, ). Third, what counts as “effective,” “restorative,” or even “satisfactory” may change by context and stakeholder (McAlister & Carr, ). Fourth, the decision to evaluate conventional outcomes of restitution and recidivism rather than healing and growth reinforces conventional thinking about justice (Pavlich, ) and reflects the inherently political and resource‐driven nature of assessment (Tassie, Murray, & Cutt, ; Yuchtman & Seashore, ).…”

The changing shape of youth justice: Models of practice

“…We do not claim to have found pure versions of the specified models of intervention played out straightforwardly in practice; or that we have precisely delineated the extent to which stated intentions are reflected in the reality of youth justice practices -this is a distinct, but related question (see, for example, McAlister and Carr, 2014;Phoenix and Kelly, 2015). We do suggest, however, that there is evidence here of the dynamic and mediated connections between the domains of policy and practice, albeit multi-dimensional and multi-directional.…”