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

Hamilton, Claire; Fitzgibbon, Wendy; Carr, Nicola

doi:10.1177/1473225415619500

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When England is seen as one constituent part of the UK, rather than as representative of it, new differences in meaning and practices between these jurisdictions are revealed (e.g. Muncie 2010;Hamilton et al 2016). Certainly, Barker's (2009) work has shown that this approach can confound the presumptions about what punishment is like in these places and provided new frameworks to explain the reasons for those penal differences (see also Jones and Newburn 2005).…”

Section: Change Where We Comparementioning

confidence: 99%

Exceptional states: The political geography of comparative penology

Brangan

2020

Punishment & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is now common in the sociology of punishment to lament that comparative penology has not matured as an area of research. While there have been seminal works in the comparative canon, their conceptual tools tend to be drawn from grand narratives and macro-structural perspectives. Comparative researchers therefore lack concepts that can help capture the complexity of penality within a single nation, limiting the cross-national perspective. Why is this relative lack of comparative refinement still the case? This article investigates this question by looking specifically at penal exceptionalism, a concept central to comparative penology. While punitiveness as a comparative and descriptive category has been critiqued, its converse, penal exceptionalism remains prevalent but undertheorised. Examining exceptionalism reveals that it is not merely the macro-structural approach to comparison that has limited the development of cross-national sociology of punishment, but the Anglocentric assumptions, which are the bedrock of comparative penology. In this essay, I argue that penal exceptionalism versus punitiveness is an Anglocentric formulation. These taken-for-granted assumptions have become so central to the comparative enterprise that they act as a barrier to developing new innovative comparative frameworks and concepts. The article concludes by suggesting some methodological strategies that are intended as a way of helping comparative penology to expand its toolkit and support the ongoing development of more equitable criminological knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Change Where We Comparementioning

confidence: 99%

Exceptional states: The political geography of comparative penology

Brangan

2020

Punishment & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Portrayed as fundamentally risk oriented, youth justice systems in some Western states have been criticised for dislodging penal welfarist principles and debarring desistance approaches . However, studies testify to the persistence of national and local divergences in penal outcomes (Hamilton et al, 2016;Muncie, 2005), with several states/regions resisting the 'USA-inspired youth repenalization' (Muncie, 2008: 116). This resistance may come in the form of diversion from the formal justice system to support services (Case and Haines, 2021).…”

Section: Social Inequality In Youth Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These developments, which reflect the proximity between youth justice and youth welfare systems , run counter to the welldocumented 'punitive turn' in youth justice (Muncie, 2008). However, studies point to divergence in youth justice delivery both across and within countries (Hamilton et al, 2016). Research has suggested that divergences within jurisdictions may be just as great, or even greater, than between countries (Muncie, 2011), emphasising the often substantial gap between law on the books and law in practice (Kilkelly, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing future crime in adolescent drug offenders: A study of differential sanction effects on recidivism

Sandøy

Østhus

Bretteville-Jensen

2022

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines and compares the effects on recidivism of the three most common legal responses to minor drug offences for adolescents in Norway. The essential question is whether alternative sanctions are more effective in preventing any reoffending in young people than the traditional fine. Using a longitudinal register data set, comprising all 15- to 17-year-old, first-time drug offenders in the 2000–2015 period (N = 3276), we investigate differences in duration between first legal decision and second arrest and the number of offences during follow-up. Our findings suggest that rehabilitative measures, in the form of a conditional waiver of prosecution with specified conditions, were more effective in preventing recidivism in adolescent drug offenders than a fine. Given the design of this sanction, which includes follow-up by social services and monitoring of drug use by health services, deferrals in recidivism may be caused by both positive rehabilitation experiences and negative punishment experiences.

show abstract

“…Comparative research in youth justice can be a complex exercise, with many issues relating to national context, history and culture impacting the evaluation of particular approaches and policies in different contexts (see further, Field, 2019;Goldson, 2019;Nelken, 2019); it is, nonetheless, a valuable tool for comparing the broad policy directions taken in different youth justice systems as well as state responses to issues of concern (see, e.g., Cunneen, 2020;Goldson, 2019;Goldson et al, 2021;Hamilton, Fitzgibbon & Carr, 2016;Leenknecht, Put & Veeckmans, 2020;Muncie, 2011). While Ireland and New Zealand take different approaches to youth justice, there are a number of similarities in the youth justice systems and wider penal culture that make a comparison useful (Forde, 2021; see further Hamilton, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the courts in protecting children's rights in the context of police questioning in Ireland and New Zealand

Forde

2022

Howard J Crime Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ensuring safeguards are in place from the earliest stages of criminal investigation is essential to ensure that children's rights in the youth justice system are adequately protected. The rights of children in conflict with the law are protected under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and in situations where these rights are breached, children must have access to an effective remedy. National courts have a role to play in ensuring that children's rights are protected and in providing necessary remedies. This article explores the role the courts have played in upholding children's rights in the police questioning process in Ireland and in New Zealand.

show abstract

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

Abstract: Punishment, Youth Justice and Cultural Contingency: Towards a Balanced Approach (Muncie, 2011).

Cited by 13 publications

References 41 publications

Exceptional states: The political geography of comparative penology

Exceptional states: The political geography of comparative penology

Preventing future crime in adolescent drug offenders: A study of differential sanction effects on recidivism

The role of the courts in protecting children's rights in the context of police questioning in Ireland and New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About