‘I Would Have Been Able to Hear What They Think’: Tensions in Achieving Restorative Outcomes in the English Youth Justice System
| Author | Alex Newbury |
| Date | 01 December 2011 |
| Published date | 01 December 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225411420531 |
Youth Justice
11(3) 250 –265
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225411420531
yjj.sagepub.com
‘I Would Have Been Able to Hear
What They Think’: Tensions in
Achieving Restorative Outcomes in
the English Youth Justice System
Alex Newbury
Abstract
This article presents findings from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with young offenders and Victim
Liaison Officers, and observations of youth offender panels. It focuses upon the attitudes of young offenders
towards victims and their reactions to the prospect of meeting the victim of their offending face-to-face as
part of their referral order. Significant tensions between the aspirations of restorative justice and the reality
of present practice in the English system are examined. The article proposes change in relation to justice
disposals for incipient young offenders, particularly in relation to the ubiquitous use of restorative justice
approaches for this group.
Keywords
family conferencing, referral orders, restorative justice, victims, young offenders
Introduction
The current government’s decision to axe the Youth Justice Board (YJB) has been greeted
with widespread concern and warnings that any short-term savings will not match the
costs in terms of increased recidivism and victims (BBC, 2011). Although the coalition
government’s focus to date has been firmly on the economy, this development may signal
the beginning of a systematic dismantling of New Labour’s vision for youth justice, rather
than a recognition of the opportunity to assess the progress that has been made over the
last decade and consider how improvements can be made in the future, both in tackling
youth offending and protecting victims. New Labour’s original vision for a ‘Third Way’
for youth justice policy emphasized the importance of making young people ‘take respon-
sibility’. The importance of ‘responsibility’ as an ideology for government is shown by
Corresponding author:
Dr Alex Newbury, Centre for Criminology and Sociology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20
0EX, UK.
Email: Alex.Newbury@rhul.ac.uk
420531YJJXXX10.1177/1473225411420531NewburyYouth Justice
Article
Newbury 251
the coalition’s emphasis on encouraging individual and social responsibility. Similarly, the
previous government’s vision to reform youth justice resulted in the introduction of the
purportedly ‘restorative’ referral order, with relatively little fanfare yet enormous scope
and potential impact upon youth offending. On the one hand, these orders were intended to
encourage responsibility, a core tenet of restorative justice (Newbury, 2008), in a way
uncannily similar to David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. On the other, they encourage net-
widening and further criminalization of young people, adding to the new culture of puni-
tiveness (Goldson, 2002). This article discusses findings from observations of 41 community
panels, and 55 qualitative, in-depth interviews with young offenders who received referral
orders over an 18-month period, plus interviews with the Victim Liaison Officers (VLO)
for each YOT. It discusses findings relating to the success of the orders as a restorative
approach, and highlights tensions of involving victims in the criminal justice process.
New Labour came to power with a promise to be ‘Tough on crime and tough on the
causes of crime’, and a determination to address the perceived inadequacies in the exist-
ing youth justice system, as set out in Misspent Youth (Audit Commission 1996). However,
this determination, couched in tough-speaking terms and resulting in the birth of the
ASBO and child curfews, and an increase in managerialism (Charman and Savage, 2008)
sits rather uneasily with the more welfare-oriented, reparative and person-centric approach
adopted by restorative justice proponents and practice. New Labour’s project to develop
the individual’s independence and potential contrasts with the ever-increasing tendency to
see youth as ‘risk’ to be controlled (Denney 2008). Young offenders become seen as ‘the
Other’, different from ‘Us’ the law-abiding adult majority (Garland, 2001). This approach
is mirrored by a general shift in justice policy from social work and rehabilitation to
public protection (Kemshall and Wood, 2008). Bottrell et al. (2010) discuss the new polit-
ical order of neo-liberal governments that position ‘risky’ young people as subjects in
need of surveillance, control and punishment. This criminalization of popular culture
(Ferrell, 1999) has resulted in earlier intervention and net-widening, such as the referral
order. This results in tensions between the social acts of individuals and social processes,
and conflicts between those individuals in relation to negotiations, power, and legitimacy
of process (Armstrong, 2004). The recent Youth Crime Action Plan (Home Office, 2008)
adopts a triple-track approach to youth crime: prevention to tackle offending behaviour
before it becomes entrenched; support, which may be non-negotiable and include parents
of young offenders; and tough enforcement if behaviour is ‘unacceptable or illegal’. In the
review document one year on, the importance of supporting young victims, reparation and
expanding the use of restorative justice are all highlighted as areas of progress for the Plan
(Home Office, 2009).
This article presents research findings from one of the first nationwide schemes in
England and Wales designed to use restorative justice with first-time young offenders,
which has now been in operation for nearly a decade. It seeks to explore how effectively a
restorative approach has been adopted by considering specific examples from research.
The involvement of victims is central to restorative justice. However, despite the increased
profile of victims in the media, and attempts at policy initiatives that include the victim in
the justice process, there appears to be a stubborn lacuna in victims’ involvement (Crawford
To continue reading
Request your trial