Tough talk: Youth offenders’ perceptions of communicating in the Youth Justice system in New Zealand
| Author | Sarah A Lount,Alan France,Linda Hand,Suzanne C Purdy |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865817740404 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Tough talk: Youth offenders’
perceptions of communicating
in the Youth Justice system in
New Zealand
Sarah A Lount, Linda Hand,
Suzanne C Purdy and Alan France
The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Youth Justice procedures rely heavily on oral language. International research suggests young
people in the Youth Justice system have poorer language skills than their non-offending peers,
which has implications for their participation in Youth Justice processes and rehabilitation
programmes. Most research of youth offenders’ communication skills focuses on standardised
assessments and quantitative measures, with little known of young people’s perceptions of
communicating within the highly verbally mediated Youth Justice setting. This exploratory
study used semi-structured interviews of eight males, of unknown language-skill status, from
one YouthJustice residence in New Zealand. Results suggested the young people felt they had
no control or ‘voice’ in court, or with adults whose roles, or with whom, they were not
familiar. Communicating in court was an area of significant difficulty for nearly all the partici-
pants; they reported feeling unable to say what they wanted or understand what was going
on. Confidence and participation varied with some participants lacking the confidence to use
communication strategies in court, whereas others would ‘just say what they wanted’.
The relationship with their communication partner, especially trust and familiarity, was
very important to facilitate communication, and most young people could identify strategies
that could help communication breakdowns, although not all reported using them. To facili-
tate full participation and access to court processes and Youth Justice programmes, the
communication barriers identified in this study should be considered in any intervention or
support developed for young people who offend.
Keywords
Adolescents, communication, juvenile delinquents, language impairment, qualitative research,
youth justice, youth offenders
Date received: 7 June 2017; accepted: 12 October 2017
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2018, Vol. 51(4) 593–618
!The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0004865817740404
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Corresponding author:
Sarah A Lount, Speech Science, the School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland
1142, New Zealand.
Email: swig006@aucklanduni.ac.nz
Introduction
In 1989, two changes in law came into being that had the potential to significantly
improve the lives of children and young people in New Zealand – one, the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), would benefit young people
the world over; the other, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act (CYPF,
1989), was specific to New Zealand. Both place the child or young person at the fore-
front and outline the importance of listening to children and young people (Ministry of
Social Development, 2007; United Nations, 1989).
In response to the CYPF Act, New Zealand introduced new objectives and principles,
and an innovative system for responding to young people who offend (Ministry of
Justice, n.d.). New Zealand’s reform of the Youth Justice (YJ) system shifted focus
away from a penal system towards one emphasising diversion, community-based sanc-
tions, family decision-making, and flexibility (Lynch, 2016) – a move that has placed
New Zealand at the international forefront of what has become known as restorative
justice. The new system holds the young person accountable, but also constructs
responses aiming at rehabilitation and reintegration, and support for their families,
whilst also taking into account the needs of victims (Ministry of Justice, n.d.).
New Zealand’s YJ System has a number of ways it can respond to a young person’s
offending, depending on severity. The majority of youth offenses are dealt with by the
police using diversion with an on-the-spot warning; some may be dealt with by specialist
Police Youth Aid Officers where further intervention may be required, but there is a clear
preference under the CYPF Act to deal with young people less formally (Maxwell,
Robertson, & Kingi, 2002).
One of the main restorative processes used in the system is Family Group Conferences
(FGCs), where the young person, their family, YJ professionals, and sometimes the
victim meet to plan how to deal with the young person who committed the offence.
The aim is to help the young person to take responsibility for their offending, find
practical ways to make amends, address why they offended, and find ways to prevent
recidivism (Cleland & Quince, 2014).
New Zealand’s YJ System makes a number of demands on the communication skills
of young people. Because it relies primarily on spoken interactions the young person
must be able to hear and understand the linguistic content, structure, and emotional cues
directed at them, and also be able to formulate and articulate a response that is appro-
priate and understandable in vocabulary, structure, and emotional content. Any one or
several of these factors may be affected in someone with a communication disorder
(Nippold, 1993).
Snow and Sanger (2011) identified the communication demands of YJ processes on
young offenders by reviewing the literature on communication disorders through the lens
of restorative justice. The communication skills youth offenders are expected to have
included: understanding questions posed by restorative meeting co-ordinators, YJ work-
ers, police, and victims; understanding complex narratives; have real-time responses to
questions; have narrative skills to be able to meaningfully and clearly explain their
perspective of what happened; have appropriate non-verbal communication, such as
eye contact and body language; and adequate hearing, and language and auditory
594 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 51(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial