Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for youth offenders?
| Author | William R Wood,Masahiro Suzuki |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895817722188 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2018, Vol. 18(4) 450 –467
Is restorative justice
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
conferencing appropriate
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817722188
DOI: 10.1177/1748895817722188
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
for youth offenders?
Masahiro Suzuki
Griffith University, Australia
William R Wood
Griffith University, Australia
Abstract
While many studies on restorative justice conferencing (RJC) for youth offenders have shown
favourable outcomes such as victim satisfaction and fairness, and offender accountability and
perceived legitimacy, other studies have demonstrated more problematic outcomes in terms
of mutual understanding, sincerity of apology and reoffending. Given the complexity of RJC as a
concept and as a process, such ‘limits’ might be attributed to the capacity and characteristics of
youth offenders. To date, however, there has been little examination of developmental, cognitive
or environmental impediments on the part of youth offenders in terms of achieving restorative
outcomes in RJC. This article discusses the potential impacts of limited developmental and
cognitive capacities of youth offenders on the RJC process and outcomes.
Keywords
Cognitive capacity, developmental psychology, maturity, restorative justice, young offender
Introduction
The growth and development of restorative justice conferencing (RJC) in the last three
decades has occurred largely within youth justice (Zinsstag, 2012). There are several rea-
sons for this including the perceived appropriateness of RJC for youth offending (Bruce
Corresponding author:
Masahiro Suzuki, Doctoral candidate, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith Criminology
Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Email: masahiro.suzuki@griffithuni.edu.au
Suzuki and Wood
451
et al., 2012; Richards, 2012), public tolerance for rehabilitative approaches for youth
offenders (Bazemore and Walgrave, 1999; Richards, 2012) and the relative amenability of
youth offenders for RJC (Bazemore and Walgrave, 1999; Bottoms, 2003). It is almost axi-
omatic today within RJC literature and practice that RJC is suitable and appropriate for
youth offenders. Numerous evaluative studies of RJC have been conducted within the last
30 years. When compared to existing criminal justice approaches, many of these studies
have demonstrated favourable outcomes for victims in terms of satisfaction, fairness and
redress; and for offenders in terms of accountability and perceived legitimacy (Strang
et al., 2013).
However, not all evaluative studies on RJC have come to such conclusions. The South
Australian Juvenile Justice (SAJJ) study found ‘limits’ in the effectiveness of RJC in the
level of mutual understanding between victims and offenders, and in the perceived sin-
cerity of apologies for victims (Daly, 2002). Other research has found similar problems
in terms of victim perceptions of youth offenders’ apologies (Choi and Severson, 2009).
Beyond problems related to the ‘restorativeness’1 and the perceived sincerity of apology
of RJC for youth offenders, there is also ambiguity regarding its effectiveness on reoff-
ending. The literature on RJ is mixed as to whether reducing reoffending should be seen
as a primary goal of RJC (Robinson and Shapland, 2008). Nevertheless, such a goal has
been set forth cautiously by some RJC proponents (Walgrave, 2012) as well as cited as
justification for the implementation and use of RJC programmes (Gielen and Buccellato,
2010). To date, evidence from evaluative studies on reoffending is mixed, with some
research finding a positive impact of RJC on reoffending (Sherman et al., 2015; Wong
et al., 2016), and others finding minimal or no effects (Hayes, 2007; Livingstone et al.,
2013; Weatherburn and Macadam, 2013).
Several scholars have suggested that problems with RJC in terms of restorativeness,
sincerity of apology and reoffending may be attributed to limited capacity and immature
characteristics of youth offenders (Daly, 2003; Haines, 2000; Hayes and Hayes, 2008;
Lynch, 2010; Maruna et al., 2007; Newbury, 2011). A substantial body of literature
demonstrates differences between youth and adult offenders in many developmental
aspects (Cauffman and Steinberg, 2012; Richards, 2011; Scott and Steinberg, 2008b).
To date, however, excepting research on the limited verbal ability of youth offenders
(Hayes and Snow, 2013), there has been little examination of developmental, cognitive
or environmental impediments of youth offenders in terms of achieving restorative out-
comes in RJC.
Scott and Steinberg (2008b) have argued it may be ‘common sense’ that youth
offenders are different from adult offenders. Yet research from Gal (2011), who reana-
lysed data from the Reintegrative Shaming Experiment (RISE), found that younger
victims had lower levels of satisfaction in RJC. They were often unable to fully express
themselves in RJCs, and were more likely to experience long-lasting effects of crime
than adult victims. Thus, while it may be common sense that youth offenders differ
from adult ones in developmental or cognitive respects, there remains little recognition
of these differences within research on the effectiveness and outcomes of RJC in rela-
tion to the age of offenders.
In this article, we set forth a critical discussion of the suitability and appropriateness
of RJC for youth offenders. We give an overview of the common rationales for RJC
452
Criminology & Criminal Justice 18(4)
within youth justice before turning attention to what we see as limitations or problems
regarding its appropriateness and potential effectiveness for young people. We focus
specific attention on the impacts of limited developmental and cognitive capacities of
youth offenders on the RJC process and outcomes, as these may affect young people
most directly, but also victims of crime who may participate in RJCs. We conclude with
recommendations as to how researchers and practitioners might better assess and address
problems of suitability and appropriateness for young people in RJCs.
The Rationales for Restorative Justice Conferencing with
Youth Offenders
At least three rationales are commonly provided as to why RJC is predominately used
within youth justice. First, youth offenders generally commit less serious crimes than
adult offenders (Dünkel and Pruin, 2012). RJC is thus often considered more appropriate
for youth offenders due to the less serious nature of their offences (Bruce et al., 2012;
Richards, 2012), where such minor offences may be better dealt with through less formal
responses to offending (Johnstone, 2002); for example the replacing of police cautions
with ‘restorative cautions’ in parts of the UK (Dignan, 2001), or the growing use of RJC
as a type of diversionary practice within Australia and New Zealand (Maxwell and
Hayes, 2006). Existing research suggests that RJCs are utilized mainly for less serious
offences and/or youth offending in many countries (Zinsstag, 2012).
Second, youth offenders are considered less culpable than adult offenders (Steinberg
and Scott, 2003). Relative to adults, youth offenders lack experiences in everyday life,
and are generally less capable in using the ability to ‘reason and to process informa-
tion’ to make informed decisions in real-world situations (Scott and Steinberg, 2008a:
20). Consequently, young people are more often likely to make impulsive decisions in
relation to crime than adults (Cauffman et al., 2016). Consideration of such differences
between youth and adult offenders has led to the establishment of separate youth jus-
tice systems in most countries (Dünkel and Pruin, 2012). Also, research has found that
people tend to accept more lenient interventions for youth offenders than for adult
offenders (Piquero and Steinberg, 2010). Restorative justice conferencing as a ‘less
punitive’ option is thus often considered appropriate for youth offenders (Bazemore
and Walgrave, 1999; Richards, 2012) as most types of juvenile crimes, particularly less
serious ones, are considered an acceptable ‘mistake’ in the transition into adulthood
(Bruce et al., 2012).
Finally, youth offenders are seen as less cognitively developed and emotionally
mature than adults (Cauffman and Steinberg, 2012). As such, they are more malleable to
environmental determinants, particularly family and peers (Steinberg and Schwartz,
2000). When youth behaviours are deemed ‘inappropriate’ in accordance with societal
norms, childhood and adolescence are seen as the most opportune and effective place in
the life course for approaches that seek to introduce more prosocial bonds (Hirschi,
1969), develop moral reasoning and empathy (Farrington and Welsh, 2007), and afford
opportunities to correct past mistakes without significant prohibitions or enduing social
stigma (Becker, 1963). Through moral communication that involves censure of delin-
quent behaviours and face-to-face dialogue with victims, RJC is seen as encouraging
Suzuki and Wood
453
youth offenders to develop empathy and moral reasoning (Young and Hoyle, 2003),
make amends to victims (Zehr, 1990) and through these to more successfully reintegrate
into their communities (Braithwaite, 1989). As such, the compatibility of RJC with reha-
bilitative tradition of youth justice has attracted support from...
To continue reading
Request your trial