Sociological criminology and youth justice: Comparative policy analysisandacademic intervention

Abstract

This article is presented in two interconnected parts. It addresses issues that have arguably received insufficient attention in most sociologically oriented criminological research and commentary on youth justice and related policy and practice developments, both within the UK jurisdictions and in wider international contexts. First, it highlights the need to recognize the complexities of comparative policy analysis at international, national, regional and local levels. Second, in the light of such complexity, the article attempts to explore the challenges confronting social science in general and sociological criminology in particular, in efforts to critically inform policymaking processes. In conclusion, it is suggested that the possibilities for vibrant, critical and publicly engaged academic intervention in the youth justice policy sphere rest upon the mobilization of theoretically and empirically based analyses, together with research-informed proposals for policy formation and practice development.

Juvenile Corrections in the Era of Reform: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies

“…Some scholars have questioned the narrow definition of 'evidence' in EBPs and policymakers' neglect of sociological perspectives and knowledge produced by methods other than quantitative or experimental designs (Goldson & Hughes, 2010;Rex, 2002;Sampson, 2010).…”

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

“…On the other hand, it would still appear to be the more punitive jurisdiction when compared with the other two sample countries, perhaps substantiating claims that progress in this regard should be considered in light of the very high starting point (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2015). As is often the case with comparative criminal justice research, difficulties abound in obtaining accurate and comprehensive longitudinal data, especially data that are consistent over the time period in question (Goldson and Hughes, 2010). Particular difficulties were encountered in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland owing to the paucity of good quality data and inconsistent recording practices (Seymour, 2006;Youth Justice Review, 2011 The results for the three jurisdictions can be shown below.…”

International Juvenile (In)justice: Penal Severity and Rights Compliance

“…Not all perpetrators are held accountable, creating a culture of impunity and tolerance of violence against children. (Pinheiro 2006: 16) The juxtaposition of universal human rights discourse and international recognition of state responsibilities to safeguard children on the one hand, and the pervasive violation of children by the State parties themselves -particularly those in conflict with the law -on the other hand is, to say the least, anomalous (Goldson 2009). Such anomaly echoes Abramson's (2000) earlier analysis of the implementation of the UNCRC within juvenile justice systems in 141 countries that revealed widespread absence of 'sympathetic understanding'.…”