The globalization of crime control—the case of youth and juvenile justice

Abstract

The concept of globalisation has gradually permeated criminology, but more so as applied to transnational organised crime, international terrorism and policing than in addressing processes of criminal justice reform. So how useful is it in understanding contemporary transformations in systems of youth and juvenile justice? Until the 1970s juvenile justice, was dominated by an entrenched series of debates circulating around the often-nebulous opposition of welfare and punishment. Since then neoliberal assaults on the social logics of the welfare state and public provision, particularly in Britain, USA, Canada and Australasia, have brought profound shifts in economic, social and political relations associated with the 'free market'. In their wake have emerged a renewed penalisation of young people and an emphasis on enforcing individual, family and community responsibility. Simultaneously many jurisdictions worldwide have begun to experiment with restorative justice and the prospect of rehabilitation through mediation. Widely ratified international directives, epitomised by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, have also begun to stress the importance of incorporating a rights consciousness into juvenile justice reform. These diverse trajectories in retribution, responsibility, restoration and rights have created a particularly complex contemporary landscape of youth governance. The concept of globalisation draws attention to the impact that these competing transformations have had on processes of policy and legal convergence. Based on a wide range of bibliographic and web resources, this article assesses the extent to which it is now possible to talk of a global juvenile/youth justice or whether persistent national and local divergences, together with the contradictions of contemporary reform, preclude any aspiration for the delivery of a universal and consensual product.

Community-Based Interventions for At-Risk Youth in Ontario under Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act: A Case Study of a “Runaway” Girl

“…It therefore varies across jurisdictions and manifests as less radically new in some instances than in others. Indeed, the widespread cross-jurisdictional embrace of partnering and related constructs arguably has as much to do with their symbolic or emotional appeal as with their substance (Edwards and Hughes 2002;Garland 1997;Hughes and Gilling 2004;Muncie 2005;Stenson 2002Stenson , 2005.…”

“…Youth must meet their responsibility as ''partners.'' Those who refuse or fail to be ''responsibilized'' effectively ''choose'' their own marginalization and exclusion (Rose 1999(Rose , 2000asee also Bauman 2000;Bittle 2002;Hughes 2002, 2005;Garland 1997;Hannah-Moffat 2000;Muncie 2005;Newburn 2002). …”

“…These policy initiatives institutionalize a ''preventative partnership'' (Garland 2000) strategy aimed at reducing overreliance on the justice system by shifting responsibility for preventing and responding to youth crime ''and its associated risks'' to communities, families, and individuals. Situated broadly within a neo-liberal/advanced liberal approach to governance, the YCJA is shaped by Canada's participation in a global trade in policy ideas and technologies of implementation that is reshaping juvenile justice, crime prevention, and social welfare across Western jurisdictions (Edwards and Hughes 2005;Feeley 2003;Garland 1996Garland , 2000Hughes and Gilling 2004;Léonard, Rosario, Scott, and Bressan 2005;Muncie 2005;Newburn 2002;O'Malley 1999O'Malley , 2002Pratt 2001;Schofield 2002;Shaw and Andrew 2005;Stenson 2002Stenson , 2005. In this article, we address the promises and challenges of Canada's effort to implement this ''new'' approach, as exemplified in community responses to the needs and situation of a 16-year-old Ontario girl (pseudonym ''Connie'') who ''ran away'' from an abusive home at age 15.…”

“…However, it also recognizes political agency and, thus, ''the concurrent existence of competing, multiple, publics'' and ''competing sovereignty projects'' (Edwards and Hughes 2005, 356). Perhaps most importantly, it sees an array of ''hybrid'' (O'Malley 2002) alternatives that meld neo-liberal economic strategies and rationalities with neo-conservative (exclusionary) and/or social-democratic (inclusionary) aims (see also Hannah-Moffat 2000Muncie 2005;O'Malley 1999;Schofield 2002;Stenson 2002Stenson , 2005.…”

Competing Paradigms? The Use of DNA Powers in Youth Justice

“…The attributes of the 'New Zealand model': diversion, restorativeness, cultural flexibility, reintegration and decarceration have been highly influential on other jurisdictions (Morris and Maxwell, 2001;Muncie, 2005). New Zealand is unusual in having a sharp contrast between the progressive youth justice system and the punitive and populist adult system (Pratt and Clark, 2005), and amongst similar jurisdictions (particularly England and Wales) in resisting the 'punitive turn' (Goldson, 2002) in youth justice (Muncie, 2008).…”