Editorial
| DOI | 10.1177/147322540400400101 |
| Published date | 01 April 2004 |
| Author | Barry Goldson |
| Date | 01 April 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Editorial
It is my pleasure to be writing the editorial for the first issue of the fourth volume of
Youth Justice and I want to begin with some acknowledgements and thanks. No journal
is possible without those who submit material to be considered for publication and
those who read and assess such submissions. Naturally, the processes of submission
and peer-review are confidential and strictly anonymised and, as such, I am unable to
thank named persons. This said, acknowledgements are due to the authors of the many
papers that have been, and continue to be, submitted to the journal and to the specialist
assessors who are drawn from the Editorial Board and elsewhere. Thanks too to Nigel
Stone whose excellent Legal Commentary contributions have become a regular feature of
the journal, to Marcus Roberts, and more recently to Tim Bateman, for their work in
compiling Youth Justice News and to Denis Jones for managing the Book Reviews. Finally,
thanks to colleagues from the National Association for Youth Justice and Russell
House Publishing who are always a pleasure to work with and who have helped to
firmly establish the journal within the academic, policy and practice sites of the
contemporary youth justice world.
The papers published in Volume 3 were of the highest standard and Volume 4 opens
in similar fashion.
Bill Whyte has substantially revised and expanded the paper that he first presented
at the National Association for Youth Justice annual conference in September 2003, in order
to provide a detailed and rigorous scholarly analysis of the application of research
evidence to policy and practice. Whyte’s extensively referenced paper provides as good
a review of the literature in this field as there is. The article extends beyond a literature
review, however, and it critically assesses the potential for research evidence to be more
studiously applied to policy formation and practice development.
One of the impediments to forging a more harmonious relation between research,
policy and practice within the realm of youth justice – particularly in England and
Wales but increasingly elsewhere too – is the politicisation of the core questions and
the enduring nature of adversarialism. This latter emphasis stands in stark contrast to the
more inquisitorial responses to youth crime that can be found in many European
jurisdictions. Ido Weijers explores this contrast within the context of the courtroom.
He argues that the Court should facilitate ‘communication’ between children and
sentencers to offer opportunities for ‘moral dialogue’ and ‘pedagogy’. Weijers explores
the perceived benefits of this approach within The Netherlands and he suggests that
if it were to be applied in courts in England and Wales it would necessitate substantial
structural and institutional changes to youth court processes.
Weijers makes the case for the ‘special treatment’ of juveniles largely on the basis of
their ‘immaturity’. Indeed, it is for similar reasons that the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 provides that an ‘Appropriate Adult’ is required to accompany children and
young people in cases where they are being detained in police custody under caution. In
recent years volunteers are increasingly being recruited in order to serve as ‘Appropriate
Adults’. It is timely therefore, that the third substantive article in this issue of the journal
provides Harriet Pierpoint with an opportunity to report the findings of the first survey
of volunteer appropriate adult services in England and Wales.
To continue reading
Request your trial