Mainstreaming Restorative Justice for Young Offenders through Youth Conferencing the experience of Northern Ireland. David O’Mahony and Catriona Campbell* August 2004




старонка2/2
Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер91.14 Kb.
1   2

Conclusions

Northern Ireland offers a number of insights in youth justice practice and policy which are relevant to the international forum. The introduction of youth conferencing system in appears to be a positive development for both victim and offender. If youth conferencing is to be effective in achieving positive outcomes high standards of best practice, due process and procedural equity must be aspired to and attained. This will require a great deal of time and resources and, in theory, the quality of the conferences may be affected by the sheer quantity of referrals. In terms of facilitation, formulaic conferences in which the content of the conference plans are decided in the pre-conference meetings should be avoided. Less ‘scripted’ conferences which do not simply ‘go through the motions’ are perhaps more desirable in achieving a long-term positive outcome - in New Zealand, research shows that a successful conference contributed to reducing the chance of reoffending (Maxwell and Morris, 2002). Inevitably, not all cases will be appropriate for youth conferencing - when seventeen year olds come under the jurisdiction of the youth court offences such as car tax evasion will be referred to the youth conferencing service. Consequently, the efficacy of mandatory referrals may be something to be reviewed over time.


One of the more successful aspects of youth justice practice in Northern Ireland outside youth conferencing has been adopted by the police and their use of the Youth Diversion Scheme. The scheme manages to keep the majority of young offenders away from formal proceedings and deals with most juvenile offending informally. This has been shown to be effective as recidivism rates of those dealt with informally are considerably lower than those prosecuted through the courts. The police have also been developing their practices with young offenders and now deliver cautions using a restorative framework which should help young people realise the harm caused by their offending and may help victims come to terms with the offence. This new practice has been shown to be a significant improvement to previous methods of cautioning and hopefully will lead to continued low levels of recidivism for such young offenders.
The use of custody has is another area where there have been considerable advances. Northern Ireland has moved from a jurisdiction which locked up too many of its young people, sometimes for petty offences. This has changed and now the numbers in custody is only around 30-35 children (10-16 years of age). Progressive legislation which has restricted the courts ability to impose custodial sentences on children other than for serious offences and restrictions on custodial remands has helped greatly to keep the number of young people in custody to a minimum. The importance of restricting the use of custody is underlined by the very high reconviction rates of those who have been released from custody, showing it to be really only effective as a means of temporary incapacitation. Best practice shows that custody should only be used as a last resort for juveniles and for the shortest period necessary.
However not everything is positive, most recently Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) look set to be extended to Northern Ireland, sitting uncomfortably in a juvenile justice system said to be underpinned by a restorative justice philosophy. Anti-social behaviour orders were introduced in England and Wales under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) and a draft proposal for the expansion of ASBOs in Northern Ireland was published in May 2004. ASBOs are civil orders whose primary purpose is to “protect the public from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress” by dealing with “persistent unruly behaviour” (NIO, 2004). It is anticipated that ASBOs will be available in two ways. Firstly, where there is no conviction the police, district council or housing executive may make an application to a civil court. Notably, hearsay evidence is admissible in a civil court so the affected person does not have to give first hand evidence on any anti-social behaviour, meaning the burden of proof is below that required in criminal proceedings. Secondly, it is proposed that ASBOs will be available to a court on conviction in criminal proceedings. In both instances ASBOs can only be introduced where it is deemed necessary to protect a person from further anti-social acts. An ASBO will not appear on an individual’s criminal record, as it is a civil order. However, there are significant implications for breach, which is classified as a criminal offence and punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Effectively the ASBO is a hybrid conviction which takes advantage of the lower standard of proof required in civil proceedings, but punishes non-compliance with the imposition of onerous criminal sanctions.
Anti-social Behaviour Orders are perhaps the most controversial of the new criminal justice measures to be established in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales they have proved difficult to implement in practice, with support from local authorities described as “not consistent” and “patchy” (Campbell, 2002; Burney, 2002). Their introduction sends mixed messages about the government’s youth justice strategy, as they mark a divergence from the increasingly restorative path youth justice in Northern Ireland has been following. Groups campaigning for the rights of young people have been strongly vociferous in their opposition to ASBOs. In June 2004 the Children’s Commissioner unsuccessfully called for a judicial review of the proposed legislation (Belfast Telegraph, June 11, 2004) and the Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission expressed concern that ASBOs would “severely and unjustifiably restrict the human rights of many individuals and possibly leave them open to attack by paramilitary organisations” (NIHRC, 2004). In spite of such opposition, the government appears steadfast and the orders look set to be passed into law in the near future. Whether they ultimately serve to protect the public from persistent unruly behaviour or result in young people being criminalised on shaky evidence remains to be seen.
References

Ashworth, A. (2001) “Is Restorative Justice The Way Forward For Criminal Justice?” Current Legal Problems, 54, pp. 347-76.

Belfast Telegraph (2004) Hooligan Law Faces Court Challenge, June 11th 2004

Becker, H. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: Free Press of Glencoe.

Black, H. (1979) Legislation and Services for Children and Young Persons in Northern Ireland. Children and Young Persons Review Group. HMSO.: Belfast.

Braithwaite, J. (1999) Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts in M. Tonry, Ed., Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burney, E. (2002) “Talking Tough, Acting Coy: What Happened to the Anti-Social Behaviour Order?” The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(5), pp. 469-484.

Campbell, S. (2002). A Review of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Great Britain, Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Christie, N. (1979) “Conflicts as Property”. British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), pp. 1-15.

Crawford, A., and Newburn, T. (2003) Youth Offending and Restorative Justice: Implementing Reform in Youth Justice. Cullompton: Willan.

Criminal Justice Review Group. (2000) Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland. Belfast: HMSO.

Daly, K. (2002) “Restorative Justice: The Real Story” Punishment and Society, 4(1), pp. 55-79.

Digest 4 (2004) Digest of Information on the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice System 4. Belfast. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency: Belfast.
Graham, J. & Bowling, B. (1995) Young People and Crime - Home Office Research Study 145. Home Office: London.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland Office (2001) Criminal Justice Review: Implementation Plan. Belfast: HMSO.

Home Office (2003) Restorative Justice: the Government's Strategy Available: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/restorativestrategy.pdf [July 12th, 2004].

Hoyle, C. (2002) “Securing Restorative Justice for the 'Non-Participating' Victim” in C. Hoyle and R. Young, Eds., in New Visions of Crime Victims Oxford: Hart.

Hoyle, C., Young, R. and Hill, R. (2002) Proceed with Caution: An Evaluation of the Thames Valley Police Initiative in Restorative Cautioning. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

International Crime Victimisation Survey (2000): Key Findings for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Office, Research and Statistical Bulletin 1/2002, Belfast.

Johnstone, G. (2001) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Devon: Willan Press.
Mathewson, T. Willis, M. and Boyle, M. (1998) Cautioning in Northern Ireland. A Profile of Adult and Juvenile Cautioning and Reoffending Rates. Northern Ireland Office, Research and Statistics Branch. Research Findings 4/98: Belfast.

McCold, P. (2000). Towards a Mid-range theory of Restorative Juvenile Justice: A Reply to the Maximalist Model. Contemporary Justice Review, 3(4), pp. 357-414.


McQuoid, J. (1994) ‘The Self-Reported Delinquency study in Belfast, Northern Ireland’

In, Junger-Tas, J. et al. Delinquent Behaviour Among Young People in the Western World. Kulger: Amsterdam.

McEvoy, K. and Mika, H. (2002). Restorative Justice and the Critique of Informalism in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), pp. 534-562.

Maxwell, G. and Morris, A. (1993) Family, Victims and Culture: Youth Justice in New Zealand. Wellington: Social Policy Agency and Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington.

Maxwell, G. and Morris, A. (2002) “Restorative Justice and Reconviction” Contemporary Justice Review, 5(2), pp. 133-146.

Miers, D. (2001) An International Review of Restorative Justice. Great Britain, Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Miers, D., Maguire, M., Goldie, S. et al (2001) An Exploratory Evaluation of Restorative Justice Schemes. Great Britain, Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Morris, A., Maxwell, G., and Robertson, J. (1993) Giving Victims a Voice: A New Zealand Experiment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(4), pp. 304-321.

Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Review Group (1998) Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: A Consultation Paper, August 1998. Belfast: HMSO.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (2004) Press Release: Human Rights Commission Gravely Concerned at Haste in Introducing Anti-social Behaviour Orders. Available: http://www.nihrc.org/ [July 12th, 2004].

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (2002) Initial Comments on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. Available: http://www.nihrc.org/documents/landp/71.doc [July 14th, 2004].

Northern Ireland Office (2004) Proposal for a Draft Anti-social Behaviour (NI) Order. Available : http://www.nio.gov.uk/pdf/antisocial2004.pdf [July 11th, 2004]

O'Mahony, D. and Deazley, R. (2000) Juvenile Crime and Justice. Belfast: Criminal Justice Review Group: HMSO.

O’Mahony, D., Chapman, T. and Doak, J. (2002) Restorative Cautioning: A Study of Police Based Restorative Cautioning Pilots in Northern Ireland. Belfast: NISRA.

Quinn, K and Jackson, J. (2004) The Detention and Questioning of Young Persons by the Police in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Research and Statistics Agency: Belfast.

Royal Ulster Constabulary (1996) Chief Constable's Annual Report 1995. Belfast: HMSO.


Rutherford, A (1992) Growing out of Crime: The New Era Waterside Press, London.

Shapland, J., Wilmore, J. and Duff, P. (1985) Victims and the Criminal Justice System. Aldershot: Gower.

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Colledge, E. et al. (2004) Implementing Restorative Justice Schemes (Crime Reduction Programme): A Report on the First Year Available: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr3204.pdf [July 9th 2004]

Strang, H. (2002) Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Umbreit, M., and Zehr, H. (1996) “Restorative Family Group Conferences: Differing Models and Guidelines for Practice.” Federal Probation 60(3), pp. 24–29.

Warner, K. (1994) “Family Group Conferences and the Rights of Offenders” in C. Alder and J. Wundersitz, eds., Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism? Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.


Wilson, D. Kerr, H. and Boyle, M. (1998) Juvenile Offenders and Reconviction in Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Office, Research and Statistics Branch

Research Findings 3/98: Belfast.


Wolfgang , M. Thornberry, T. and Figlio, R (1987) From Boy to Man, From Delinquency to Crime. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Youth Justice Agency (2003) Youth Conference Service Practice Manual. Belfast: Youth Justice Agency.






1   2


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка