Welfare versus Justice - Again!

Abstract

This article reviews recent developments in government policy designed to provide an integrated framework for children's services, in the light of the continuing and long-running debate between principles of welfare and justice. It is noted that at the level of policy, it has repeatedly been argued that responding to the offences of children and providing for their welfare are inseparable. However, this apparent consensus has resulted in a range of different service structures and delivery systems over the years, characterised by 'turf wars' amongst policy-makers and practitioners, and unintended consequences in terms of damaging outcomes for children. The article suggests that the most recent policy initiatives from government leave this tension unresolved; and it concludes that alternative rationales need to be developed to inform interventions with children who offend.

Making Sense of the Melting Pot: Multiple Discourses in Youth Justice Policy

“…The most obvious and widely recognised example of contradictory discourses in youth justice concern the uneasy co-existence of policies inspired by welfare on the one hand and justice on the other that grew out of the post-war welfare settlement (R. Smith, 2005) and that still underpin so many of the workings of the youth justice system. Contemporary observers identify the ambivalent and ambiguous character of New Labour's copious youth justice policies, insofar as they advance, qualify or are actively inimical to foundational principles of welfare (Goldson, 2000).…”

Offender health and social care: a review of the evidence on inter-agency collaboration

“…The review also identified previous reviews with a bearing on the topic of criminal justice partnerships. In general, these were conceptual or narrative in approach, rather than systematic, and involved either review or critique of recent crime reduction policy (Fionda 1999, Hughes 2002, Kemshall 2003, Maguire 2004, Leeson & Crighton 2005, Smith 2005, Hume & Wright 2006, Lewis 2008) or application of lessons from previous research to current criminal justice partnerships (Gibbs 2001). By far the most common form of literature was policy and policy‐related documents produced by national agencies.…”

“…The relationship between YOTs and other services appears to be an issue that still needs attention particularly in the light of Children’s Act. Commentators have questioned the compatibility of the dual objectives of crime reduction and preserving children’s welfare (Home Office 2003; Smith 2005). In the opinion of civil rights group ‘JUSTICE’ policy makers ‘regard child offenders as offenders first and children (often with serious welfare problems) second’ (cited in Smith 2005, p. 9).…”

The same the whole world over? A review essay on youth offending from the 1980s and youth justice in contemporary China

“…This echoes the relative 27 decline of welfarism, the rise of neo-classicism and the tense relationship between the two in the West in the midst of the socioeconomic rupture and 'crime explosion' in the 1980s (see Reiner, 2007;Smith, 2005). It is perhaps quite noteworthy that abrupt industrialisation and deindustrialisation have both produced similar effects in the spheres of crime and justice in two culturally distinct nations (see Hall and McLean, 2009).…”

“…The term bangjiao means rehabilitation in the community -a measure similar in some ways to the UK's welfare model (Smith, 2005), recognised by Braithwaite (2002) Community care through bangjiao was reasonably successful (Mok, 1990), and therefore has been recognised as an important crime control mechanism in China (Zhang et al, 1996). However, in recent years, with the change of socioeconomic circumstances and a more mobile population, bangjiao came to be regarded as a helpful embellishment rather than an effective crime control measure in itself (Liu, 2011).…”