2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

22
Citation: 2007 Acta Juridica 1 2007 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Feb 20 05:13:53 2013 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0065-1346

description

South African child act

Transcript of 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

Page 1: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

Citation: 2007 Acta Juridica 1 2007

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Wed Feb 20 05:13:53 2013

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use:

https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0065-1346

Page 2: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

Part I

INTERNATIONAL TRENDS INRESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Situating restorative youth justice in crimecontrol and prevention

ADAM CRAWFORD*University of Leeds

I INTRODUCTION

Restorative justice has been one of the most significant developments incriminal justice practice and criminological thinking to have emergedover the past two decades. It offers both a philosophy of conflictresolution and a model of justice. It is said to have implications forgovernance at local, national and international levels, and relevance inguiding the settlement of non-crininal quarrels, minor infractions and

serious interpersonal violence, as well as international disputes, stateviolence and cases of mass genocide in societies in transition. Yet, in largepart it constitutes either a practice (often at the margins) in search of a

theory or alternatively, a philosophy desperately seeking implementation.Despite important steps to reconcile theory and practice, the 'gap'between ideal and reality remains a considerable one.'

In part, this dissonance has allowed restorative justice to meet with

enthusiastic reception from across the political spectrum and amongst avariety of professional, non-governmental and community groups.

However, the divergent interests promoting restorative justice haveresulted in practical initiatives often representing distinctive attractions to

different constituents. For some proponents, restorative justice has itsorigins deeply rooted in the victim movement, to which it must adhere.From this perspective, providing victims with a process that meets (or at

least seeks to meet) the emotional and affective needs of victims of crime

* BA MPhil (Cambridge) PhD (Leeds) Professor of Criminology and Director of the

Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds. This article was written with thegenerous support of a Leverhuhne Trust Major Research Felowship.

' K Daly 'Mind the gap: Restorative justice in theory and practice' in A von Hirsch et al(eds) RestoramiveJustice and CrininalJustice (2003).

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 1 2007

Page 3: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

2 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POICIES AND IPROSPECTS

is the primary barometer of value and worth. For others, restoring thedeliberative qualities of dispute processing to ordinary people and, byimplication, out of the hands of (state) professionals, is the ultimatelodestar.2 For still others, restorative justice represents a powerfulnormative yardstick with which to critique the failings of a largelypunitive criminaljustice system, notably with regard to the way it blames,punishes and stigmatises people caught up in its machinations. On onelevel, this breadth of appeal has allowed restorative justice to gain supportfrom diverse audiences and to find accommodation within differentpolitical programmes and prevailing institutional rhetoric. However, inpractice it also means that specific initiatives can be, and often are, pulledin different, and sometimes competing, directions as they attempt tomeet multiple aims and objectives and to satisfy the divergent demands ofdifferent constituencies. In its capacious allure the danger is thatrestorative justice initiatives may raise false expectations only to end upbeing disappointing on a number of fronts.

Furthermore, the spread and intemationalisation of restorative justicehighlights a particular problem for conceptual analysis and evaluation,particularly where contributors from different jurisdictions cometogether to talk or write about plural development around the restorativejustice theme, namely the tendency to extract practices from the cultural,political and institutional environments in which they are situated andthrough which they make sense. Family group conferencing, sentencingcircles, community panels, peace-making committees and truth andreconciliation commissions are often discussed as if they have a universalsense that can move easily between different settings without taking onnew meaning and with little implications for practices. It is as if, likebutterfly collecting, restorative justice practices are easily understoodabstracted from the habitat which nourishes them.3 And yet, therelationships between cultures, crime and responses to it are both crucialand complex. By contrast, we need to understand more, rather than less,about the differences and similarities in connections between responses tocrime and cultures, as well as the manner in which such strategies derivetheir sense and meaning from their cultural ties. For, the limits to thetransferability of crime control mechanisms or policies, which advocatesmay claim to be universal, often derive from precisely such culturalconnections.

In this paper I use the example of a particular recent development inthe youth justice system in England and Wales to draw out broader issuesand themes with regard to three central questions. First, what are some of

2 N Christie 'Conflicts as property' (1977) 17 British Journal of Criminology 1.A Crawford 'The state, community and restorative justice' in L Walgrave (ed) Restorative

Justice and the Lawv (2002).

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 2 2007

Page 4: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 3

the key challenges provoked by the institutionalisation of restorativejustice ideals, principles and processes at the heart of an essentiallypunitive criminaIjustice system? Secondly, what role do non-professionalmembers of the community contribute to restorative justiceinterventions? Thirdly, what are the implications of restorative justiceinterventions for conceptualisations of regulation and compliance? Theexample I use is the implementation of youth offender panels establishedas part of a referral order in England and Wales. Despite their particularityand peculiarity, I believe that an analysis of youth offender panels is ofinterest to international debates about restorative justice, less becausethey constitute a principled institutionalisation of restorative ideal (whichthey do not), and more because they are a hybrid cross-fertilisation (andcompromise) of diverse ideas, values and interests. Their hybridityreflects the kind of ambiguous compromise that is evident in muchcriminal justice policy.4 This is especially apparent with regard to youthjustice where, a 'general trend from welfare to justice to restoration andresponsibility' has culminated in 'a particularly complex agglomeration ofcompeting and contradictory policies'. 5

Youth offender panels embody the following factors with regard totheir place in criminal and restorative justice:

* Panels aspire to restorative values, drawing on the experiences of thefamily group conferencing model.

* However, they do so within the overtly coercive framework of acourt sentence. Whilst young people may refuse to be referred to ayouth offender panel meeting and to be sentenced under the nonnalpowers of the youth court, the panel meeting is nevertheless asentence of the court.

* Panels involve lay community members in facilitating proceedings.* Panels seek to involve victims in a dialogue about the offence and

response to it, including reparation to the victim or widercommunity.

* Panels seek to involve family members and others who might have abeneficial impact upon deliberations.

Furthermore, youth offender panels attempt to embed these at the veryheart of the youth justice system. Youth offender panels have become thesingle most utilised fonnal responses to youth crime in England andWales, representing approximately a third of all court sentences given toyoung people (aged 10-17).

4 A Crawford 'Joined-up but fragmented' in R Matthews andJ Pitts (eds) Crime, Disorderand Community Safety (2001); D Garland The Culture of Control (2001).

5J Muncie 'The globalization of crime control -the case of youth and juvenile justice'(2005) 9 Theoretical Criminology 35 at 36.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 3 2007

Page 5: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PROSPECTS

Before considering the three questions highlighted earlier, it is worthconsidering briefly the political and policy context into which youthoffender panels have been introduced.

II THE NEW YOUTH JUSTICE IN ENGLAND AND WALESIt was against a background of growing 'populist punitiveness' 6 notablytowards young offenders, that the 'New Labour' government came topower in 1997 with the promise of transforming youthjustice in Englandand Wales. Tackling youth crime and disorder was identified as aprincipal plank of public policy upon which the government's fortunes inoffice would hinge. The provocatively entitled No More Excuses whitepaper set the tone for both the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and theYouth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 that followed. One of theconceptual linchpins of the 'new youth justice' was to be the principlesunderlying 'restorative justice', dubbed the 3Rs, being 'restoration,reintegration and responsibility'. 7

The 1998 Act paid considerable attention to reforming the youthjustice infrastructure by introducing the Youth Justice Board (YJB) tooversee the changes at the national level. The youth justice system wasgiven an overarching aim: 'to prevent offending by young people' 8 and aduty on all youth justice agencies to have regard to it. At the local levelthe legislation established multi-disciplinary Youth Offending Teams(YOTs) to implement and deliver the reforns. Since April 2000, everylocal municipal authority has been required to have a YOT in place.There are now 156 YOTs across England and Wales composed of about2 500 staff from the different agencies. Under the 1998 Act cautions werereplaced by a system of reprimands and final warnings. The latter triggerinterventions, whereas reprimands stand alone as a formal police caution.Together, they act as two sequential levels of a tiered response prior tocourt appearance. Following one reprimand a firther offence will lead toa final warning or a charge. Any further offending following a finalwarning will nonnally result in a charge being brought. Once an offenderhas received either a reprimand or final warning, he or she must not begiven a second except in limited circumstances. Police forces and YOTsadminister final warnings which, according to the government, are'designed to end repeat cautioning and provide a progressive andmeaningful response to offending behaviour' 9 and ensure that juvenileswho re-offend after a 'warning' are dealt with quickly through the courts.

' A E Bottoms 'The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing' in C Clarksonand R Morgan (eds) The Politics of Sentencing Reform (1995).

7 Home Office No Aore Excuses (1997) 31-2.s Section 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998.9 Home Office Final Warning Scheme: Guidance for Youth Offending Teams (2000) at 1.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 4 2007

Page 6: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 5

The principal restorative work of YOTs under the 1998 Act wasthrough the final warning scheme, reparation orders and action planorders. Reparation orders are sentences of the court that involvesupervised and directed reparation to victims. The Act states that theconsent of victim(s) is required before a reparation order can be made.Finally, action plan orders involve an intensive three-month programmeof supervised and directed activities for young offenders, which mayinvolve restorative elements, including victim reparation.

Despite the rhetorical emphasis upon 'inclusionary restorative justice',an 'exclusionary punitive' climate has continued to hold significant sway.There has been a dramatic fall in the use of diversion over the last 12years. The proportion of young people processed for offences whoreceive a form of pre-court disposal has fallen from about 70 per cent tojust over 50 per cent. In court, the use of absolute and conditionaldischarges (the least punitive sentences) declined from 35 per cent of alldisposals to just 11 per cent in 2002. By contrast, the use of custodialsentences forjuveniles, during the same period, rose by about 90 per centand the number of 15-20 year olds in custody increased by nearly 75 percent between 1993 and 2002.10 Worryingly, this increased resort to youthimprisonment has coincided with a decline in aggregate crime rates.

III YOUTH OFFENDER PANELS

It was in this context that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act1999 sought to take youth justice further down the restorative justiceroad by introducing the referral order and youth offender panels. Areferral order is a mandatory sentence for all youths pleading guilty andconvicted for their first time, unless an absolute discharge, custodialsentence or hospital order is considered appropriate. Hence, the referralorder is the primary sentence for first-time offenders under the age of 18.The length of the referral order is determined by the court, rangingbetween three and 12 months. The disposal involves referring the youngperson to a youth offender panel administered by the YOT. Youthoffender panels consist of one YOT member and two community panelmembers recruited and trained by the YOT. One of the stated reasons forhaving lay community representation within the panel is to engage localcommunities in dealing with young offenders. There are parallels withReparative Boards in the US.11 Panels are designed to provide a lessformal context than court for the offender, victim, their supporters andmembers of the community to discuss the crime and its consequences.They are explicitly governed by principles of restorative justice. The

'o Home Office Prison Statistics fir England and Wales, 2002 Cm 5996 (2003) at 66.

D Karp and K Drakulich 'Minor crimes in quaint settings' (2004) 3 Criminology and Public

Policy 655.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 5 2007

Page 7: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PROSPECTS

purpose of the panel is to provide a constructive forum for the youngoffender to confront the consequences of the crime and agree toreparation. A parent of a young offender aged under 16 years is expectedto attend all panel meetings in all but exceptional cases. 12 The failure of aparent or guardian to attend without reasonable excuse may result incontempt proceedings under s 63 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980.The offender can also nominate an adult to support them, but it is notintended that legal representatives acting in a professional capacity beincluded in panel meetings. Where there is no direct victim the panelmay wish to invite someone who can bring a victim perspective to themeeting.

The aim of the initial panel meeting is to devise a 'contract', whichshould include both reparation to the victim or wider community and aprogramme of activity designed to prevent further offending. Accordingto national guidance, 'contracts should be negotiated with offenders, notimposed on them' .3 If no agreement can be reached or the offenderrefuses to sign the contract, then s/he will be referred back to court forre-sentencing. The YOT is responsible for monitoring contract compli-ance and the panel is expected to hold progress meetings with theoffender at least once every three months. When the period of thereferral order is successfully completed the offence is considered 'spent'for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. After initialpilots, youth offender panels were implemented across England andWales in April 2002. Dignan and Marsh described panels as 'potentiallyone of the most radical aspects of the entire youth justice reformagenda'.

14

IV CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTATION

Research conducted into the implementation of the pilots and recentpractice has highlighted a number of issues which confirm but alsotemper early optimism.' 5 Panels receive high levels of satisfaction fromvictims, young people and parents on measures of procedural justice,including being treated fairly and with respect. For the parties, they allowtime and space for the affective and emotional dimensions in responses to

12 The court has powers to place similar requirements on parents of older offenders.

" Home Office/Lord Chancellor's Department/Youth Justice Board Referral Orders andYouth Offender Panels (2002) at 31.

4J Dignan and P Marsh 'Restorative justice and family group conferences in England' in AMorris and G Maxwell (eds) Restorative Justicefor Juveniles (2001) 99.

1-5 T Newburn et al 77ie Introduction of Referral Orders into the Youth Justice System (2002); ACrawford and T Newburn Youth Offending and Restorative Justice (2003); A Crawford and TBurden Integrating Victims in Restorative YouthJustice (2005); Youth Justice Board Referral Orders:Research into the Issues Raised in The Introduction of Referral Orders into the Youth Justice System(2003).

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 6 2007

Page 8: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 7

crime. In so doing, they constitute deliberative forums that seek toaccount for the past whilst also focusing upon governing the future.Nevertheless, there are questions about the extent to which panels canever accord fully with restorative justice principles of voluntary participa-tion whilst they remain firmly located within a penal context. For manyproponents the very idea of a court-ordered referral, even after a guiltyplea, violates the essential pre-requisite that restorative justice interven-tions should be entered into voluntarily by the parties. The young personmay choose to decline referral to a panel and prefer to be sentenced bythe court under its normal array of powers; however, this choice of 'exit'is highly circumscribed. Whilst notions of 'free choice' rarely exist in anyabsolute sense in relation to most forns of restorative justice (as they areusually surrounded by various 'coercive sticks', inducements and judicialincentives), it would be disingenuous to suggest that young people arriveat panel meetings because they have chosen to be there. Despite theirconsensual imagery, some young people clearly feel they have littlechoice but to comply with what they are told.

Yet, the coercive framework of a court order may be the price to payin order to integrate restorative values into an otherwise punitive andalienating criminal justice system. For restorative justice there may be apragnatic trade-off between the vaulted ideal of 'voluntarism' andcoercion. Almost overnight, the referral order delivered a steady flow ofcases to youth offender panels which otherwise would have been dealtwith in the criminal court setting. In so doing, the referral ordercircumvents the frequent stumbling block for many restorative justiceinitiatives, namely the problem of small numbers of self-selectivereferrals. Unlike most initiatives that deal with very few caseloads andremain peripheral to the coercive system, the referral order moved centrestage drawing in its wake restorative values.

The assumption that court-ordered interventions will inevitably becorrupted or contaminated by the fact that individuals are required toattend is not necessarily borne out by the research evidence, both inrelation to panels and parenting orders. 16 Rather, the evidence suggeststhat the quality of the process or intervention and the manner in whichthe parties are treated once they attended become more important. AsTyler has shown, where power and authority are exercised, experiences

6 D Ghate and M Ramella Positive Parenting: The Effectiveness of the Youth Justice Board'sParenting Programme (2002). The research found that despite being ordered to attend parentingcourses many who did were glad that they had attended and found the intervention valuable.Whilst the majority of those (largely mothers) on parenting orders held negative feelings aboutthe parenting programmes at the outset, by the end of the programme over 90 per cent said thatthey would recommend it to other parents in difficulty and felt their parenting skils hadimproved. Court-ordered parents benefited as much as voluntary participants.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 7 2007

Page 9: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PROSPECTS

of procedural justice are intimately related to questions of legitimacy.17

Here, procedural justice relates to both the quality of decision-makingand of inter-personal treatment. It includes being treated fairly and withrespect and perceptions concerning the manner in which authority isexercised. Importantly, evaluations of legitimacy based on proceduraljustice are more important than evaluations based on distributive fairness,the appropriateness of the outcome or effectiveness of institutionalperformance. 8 The key criteria of procedural justice are closely relatedto the central values of restorative processes, namely participation(procedures that allow citizens voice and the opportunity to explain theirsituation and express their views), neutrality, respectful treatment andperceptions of trust in the motives of decision-makers. Where authoritiesare seen to care about the needs of individuals and to be acting out of 'asincere and benevolent concern' experiences of procedural justice arelikely to be enhanced. 19 There is some evidence that the role ofcommunity panel members may enhance this perception oftrustworthiness. This highlights the importance of both processes - wheredecisions are made through procedures that individuals view as fair - andpeople - where decisions are made by personnel perceived as legitimate inthat their character and motives are trusted. The impact of proceduraljustice on decision acceptance has also been shown in relation to peoplewho have been fired or laid-off from their place of employment and theirpropensity to file wrongful tenination claims in the USA, andtax-payers in long-standing disputes with the Australian Tax Office. 20

Initial research suggests that procedural justice may be more important inshaping perceptions and subsequent compliance (a theme to which Ireturn) when people do not view the laws and rules being enforced aslegitimate.2 1 This may be so precisely because, when individuals do notsupport the underlying goals of the law they invest greater salience intheir experiences to compensate for the fact that they may be complyingwith a rule or value with which they disagree.

The coercive nature of the referral order undoubtedly constrains therestorative work of panels. Nevertheless, panels offer a process throughwhich to engage young people and their parents in a different, and moreconstructive, dialogue than that generally found in the criminal courts.One of the lessons for restorative justice may be that despite the coercive

T R Tyler Why People Obey the Law (1990).T R Tyler 'Legitimating ideologies' (2005) 18 SocialJustice Research 211.

'9 T R Tyler 'Enhancing police legitimacy' (2004) 359 The Annals 84 at 95.20 E A Lind et al 'The winding road from employee to complainant' (2000) 45 Administrative

Science Quarterly 557; K Murphy 'Regulating more effectively' (2005) 32 Journal of Law andSociety 562.

21 K Murphy and T Tyler 'Rethinking legitimacy' (2005) paper presented at the AustralianNational University RegNet Conference Canberra 7-8 December 2005.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 8 2007

Page 10: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 9

context, and possibly partly as a consequence of it, institutional changecan be realized towards delivering a more, deliberative process.

The research findings also highlight legitimate concerns about the useof referral orders in cases of trivial or less serious offending, where thelevel of intervention required by a referral order (at least three months induration) may appear out of proportion to the behaviour that triggered it.Whilst amendments to referral orders (in the light of the pilot researchfindings) have helped lessen this difficulty - by making the orderdiscretionary for non-imprisonable offences - they have not removed it,as some minor offences are imprisonable. There is some evidence that thereferral order has replaced a conditional discharge in a number of cases,thus heralding significantly greater intervention and 'up-tariffing'. Inaddition, there is genuine unease about the possible 'net-widening' and'mesh-thinning' effects of such orders, 22 as young people are potentiallydrawn into and through the youth justice system more rapidly. This isparticularly evident where young people have not previously been givena reprimand or final warning, which research has shown is often the case.

(1) Victim involvement

The involvement of victims, and in particular their attendance at panelmeetings, has been the most disappointing aspect of implementation. Inthe pilots a victim attended a panel in only 13 per cent of relevant cases. 23

More recent research in a large metropolitan YOT confirms this lowlevel of victim involvement.24 This is significantly lower than the levelsof victim involvement recorded by evaluation studies in relation toconferencing schemes in New Zealand (51 per cent),25 Australia (73 percent) 2 6 and Northern Ireland (69 per cent).27 Relatively higher levels ofvictim attendance were detected in some pilot areas where greaterpriority was accorded to victim contact, reinforcing the observation thatproblems of victim non-attendance may be more a failure of practicethan principle. Nevertheless, in both English studies most victims thatdecided to attend a panel found the process valuable.

One warning for restorative justice from the experience of panels maybe that in practice there can be a tension between communityinvolvement and victim participation. Karp and Drakulich's observationwith regard to Reparative Boards in Verniont that 'substantial community

2' S Cohen Visions of Social Control (1985).23 Crawford and Newburn (n 11).21 Cra-wford and Burden (n 11).25 A Morris et al 'Giving victims a voice' (1993) 32 Howard Journal 304; H Strang et al

Experiments in Restorative Policing (1999); C Campbell et a] Evaluation of the Northern IrelandYouth Conference Service (2006) at 309.

26 Campbell et al (n 25) at 121.27 Campbell et all (n 25) at 48.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 9 2007

Page 11: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PROSPECTS

involvement' co-exists alongside 'limited victim involvement' is equallyapplicable to youth offender panels. 28 The concern is that involvement ofcommunity representatives may operate at the expense of direct victiminput. Community representatives may be felt to be capable of bringing avictim perspective through their own role as indirect or secondaryvictims of the crime. This expanded notion of victim conforms torestorative justice models of harn and was often articulated by commu-nity panel members in interviews and observations, but may serve tolimit the involvement of actual victims. This is not to suggest thatcommunity involvement will always function in this manner, but ratherthat in a youth justice system that is often unwilling or reluctant to accordto victims a central stake, 29 conmunity participation can be used as anexcuse for victim non-attendance. The low levels of victim participationat English panels in the pilot research and Vermont Reparative Boardsraise important questions about the cultural challenges presented byattempts to integrate victims into the heart ofjustice processes.

(2) Comm unity involvetment

The involvement of community panel members has been a centralelement of the changes introduced by youth offender panels. Though notunproblematic, lay involvement may be an inmportant safeguard againstthe excesses of managerial pressures on youth justice with their emphasison speeding up processes, efficiency benefits and performancemeasurement. 30 These administrative requirements can serve to under-mine the affective dimension and normative appeal of restorative justiceinspired interventions. Ensuring diverse volunteer involvement in panelscan lead to the inclusion of a broader range of approaches and values. Itmay also lead to the development of localised practices which, becausethey are fostered, detenrmined and owned by volunteers, are relativelyresistant to the demands of bureaucratic managerialism. The participationof ordinary citizens in the deliberative processes of youth justice can helpensure that proceedings which may otherwise be dominated by technicalor managerial demands also accord with the expressive needs of thoseinvolved in responses to crime, notably victims. It can facilitate the'opening up' of otherwise introspective professional values, wherebypractitioners are guided by detached and disinterested performancestandards, often of a kind that are more concerned with internalorganisational priorities than responsiveness to public interests. The

2$ Karp and Drakulich (n 8) 678.29J Shapland (2000) 'Victims and criminal justice' in A Crawford and J Goodey (eds)

Integrating a Victim Perspective within CriminalJustice (2000)." A Crawford and T Newburn 'Recent developments in restorative justice for young

people in England and Wales' (2002) 42 British Jounal of Criminology 476.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 10 2007

Page 12: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 11

experience of youth offender panels is testimony to the seriousness andthoughtfulness that lay people can bring to such forums and to the task offacilitating discussion.

The involvement of volunteers can help make use of a range oflocally-based interventions and opportunities for reparation. It may alsohelp to encourage greater synergy between formal and informal systemsof control. It can promote the importance of local capacity and localknowledge, and contribute, in small part, to restoring the deliberativecontrol of justice to citizens in line with debates about 'communityjustice'. 31 However, there are important differences between restorativejustice and notions of community justice. Whilst the former seeks toresolve specific cases and therefore is always both reactive and particular-istic in focus, the latter has a wider concern for community relations andthe prevention of conflict before it arises. Restorative justice operates atthe level of specific events, seeking to determine how they are handledand resolved. Once concluded, restorative justice may be seen as havingachieved its objectives. In this sense, as Abel accused early experiments ininformalism and alternative dispute resolution, restorative justice may beinherently 'conservative' in leaving untouched the wider causes of crime,and individualizing both disputes and the solutions to them. 32 It offers'biographic solutions' to what may be systemic or broader structuralproblems.33 If restorative justice is to address these critiques practicalinterventions need to find and embed ways in which the collectivelessons arising from, and implications of, individual cases are fed into localcommunity infrastructures to prevent future disputes. In essence,restorative justice will need to become firmly tied to crime preventionpolicies as promoted by a wide variety of public, private and voluntaryorganizations.

Research findings suggest that volunteers may be seen by youngoffenders, victims and parents as according legitimacy to the process bythe very fact that they are not professionals. 34 Community involvementcan counter scepticism on the part of participants (notably offenders) thatdecision-makers are removed from their concerns and understandings,precisely because of their professional attachments. Community mem-bers at panel meetings often emphasise their sincerity in their concern forthe welfare of the offender and the wider community. This is reinforcedthrough reference to their own status as volunteers, implying somethingunique and important about the voluntary participation of local citizens.

31 T R Clear and D R Karp The Conmmunityfustice Ideal (1999).32 R, Abel 'Conservative conflict and the reproduction of capitalism' (1981) 9 International

Journal of the Sociology qf Law 245." U Beck Risk Society: Towards a Net Modernity (1992).34 Crawford and Newbum (n 24).

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 11 2007

Page 13: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

12 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PROSPECTS

As noted earlier, assessments about the motives of decision-makers can beimportant detenminants of perceptions of procedural justice. Non-professionals and volunteers may be more likely to be thought to beacting out of a sincere and benevolent concern.

Nevertheless, working with volunteers as equal partners in an inclusiveprocess presents real challenges to the way in which professional YOTstaff work. There is clearly still more that can be done in relation to theinvolvement of volunteers as a broader resource in delivering a form ofjustice that links panels to wider comnunities in which they are located.Furthermore, volunteer involvement raises questions regardingrepresentation. If lay involvement is intended to reflect the parties 'peers'or the general citizenry, then this accords a significant import to theirrepresentative composition. Analysis of the over 5 000 panel volunteersacross England and Wales working by the end of December 2002 showsthat, despite an over-representation of women (65 per cent), panelmembers broadly reflected the general population, as against nationalcensus data.3 5

Conversely, lay involvement may also affront cherished notions of'non-partisanship' that are key criteria in the legitimate exercise of power,both at a normative level and in terms of how justice is experienced byindividuals. There is an ambiguity in that the more attached tocommunity lay panel members are, the less likely they are to hold therequired 'detached stance' which constitutes a central value in establish-ing facilitator neutrality and legitimacy. The more that facilitators orpanel members represent particular interests or value systems the greaterthe danger that the interests of one of the principal parties may becomesidelined or lost altogether. Ironically, it is exactly this pressure to provideneutral and detached facilitators that increases the likelihood of theprofessionalisation of lay panel members and the formalization ofotherwise fluid and open restorative processes. Experience suggests thatover time schemes come to rely upon a group of 'core' volunteers, whoincreasingly are seen as semi-professionals by virtue of their workturnover, their training and experience. As a result, panel members maybegin to look and behave more like 'quasi-professionals' than ordinary laypeople. In this context, lay volunteers raise questions about theappropriate competencies and skills that particular personnel should havein contributing to the process, and hence, about the nature and quality ofproceedings, as well as the accountability of volunteers and paneloutcomes.

'5 F Biermann and A Moulton Youth Offender Panel Volunteers in England and Wales (2003) at2. By comparison, panel volunteers are more representative of the population than laymagistrates, particularly with regard to age and ethnic origin.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 12 2007

Page 14: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 13

V RESPONSIVE REGULATION AND COMPLIANCE

If we are to consider restorative justice to be a means of governing futurerelations, not merely reordering the past or restoring prior harms, weneed to explore the type of regulatory regime that restorative principlesevoke and implications for compliance. Braithwaite has begun to openup this important avenue of enquiry by linking restorative justice tonotions of responsive regulation. 36 Responsiveness, here, refers to themanner in which regulatory regimes fit with, and relate to, other forms ofregulation. This prompts descriptive questions about the resonance ordissonance between different systems of control, as well as normativequestions about how better systems of regulation can work with andthrough existing systems of control rooted in social, economic andcultural life. The traditional lens of criminal regulation has operatedthrough state-directed command and control based mechanisms, namelycourt imposed sanctions. By contrast, regulation is said to become'responsive' where regulators recognize and respond to the conduct ofthose they seek to regulate in ways that are sensitive to the conditions inwhich regulation occurs and the capacity of the regulated for self-regulation. 37 Such responsiveness, where it involves cooperation and theactive engagement of the regulated parties, will produce more legitimateand effective regulation. Whilst this contrast between hierarchicalcommand and control versus 'responsive regulation' often masks the roleof social norms, voluntary compliance and the ordinary citizenry inregulating through traditional criminal law based sanctions, as Laceynotes, it importantly highlights certain normative assumptions about thepossible effectiveness of regulatory regimes for future compliance. 38

From this viewpoint, restorative justice can be seen as a form of'responsive regulation' in that it engages with (rather than imposes upon)the subjects of regulation and enlists both their participation in theconstruction of the norms governing future behaviour and theirself-regulatory capacities - in a type of 'regulated self-regulation'. Toillustrate this through the example of youth offender panels, the youngperson and his parents are encouraged to participate in the constructionof the 'contract' terns (the agreed outcome of the panel) in a way thattakes cognizance of their capacity to regulate their own future conduct(with the assistance of others) and to engage in activities that address theyoung person's offending behaviour. One youth cited in our recentresearch described, as follows, the implications for him of having beengiven a genuine say in the construction of the contract tenns:

3'J Braithwaite Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (2002).11 Braithwaite (n 36) 29.38 N Lacey 'Crininalisation as regulation' in C Parker et al (eds) Regulating Law (2004)

148-9.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 13 2007

Page 15: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PIROSPECTS

'I'm glad I actually discussed with them what I was going to do rather thanthem saying "this is what you're doing". It were [sic] a lot easier. If they hadsaid: "this is what you are doing", I would have felt a bit down aboutmyself. .. '39

For this young person, as he went on to explain, the fact that he hadactively contributed to the contract gave him a moral incentive to ensurethat he complied with its terms.

Ayres and Braithwaite, in thinking about the appropriateness of givenregulatory 'tools' to specific regulatory tasks, propose the model of a'regulatory pyramid'.4 0 Initially developed in relation to business regula-tion, Braithwaite has adapted this to the regulation of individualbehaviour and linked it with ideas of restorative justice. 41 In theregulatory pyramid, persuasion precedes punishment, both temporallyand in terms of seriousness. There is a presumption to commence at thebase of the pyramid and that most regulatory action will occur near thebase with various attempts to coax compliance through persuasion. Onlywhen dialogue and voluntary compliance fail ought there to beincremental movement up the pyramid: 'When the cooperativeapproach fails, the regulator escalates up the pyraiud'. 42

Command and sanction do not disappear altogether. Rather, they arerestricted to the tip of the pyramid. Braithwaite goes on to argue that'persuasion will normally only be more effective than punishment insecuring compliance when the persuasion is backed up by punishment'. 43

Command and coercion remain in the background as a tool of last resort.Far from undermining negotiation, it is argued, they can facilitate it.'Speaking softly and carrying sticks' can be mutually supportive. 4 4 Thepresence of the stick in the background may provide those seeking tonegotiate with additional authority when attempting to secure voluntarycompliance. Braithwaite suggests that the effectiveness of ordering at thebase of the pyramid is dependent upon the credible capacity of escalationup the pyramid.45 Escalation should be responsive to the degree ofuncooperativeness of the regulated, as well as to the moral and politicalacceptability and credibility of the response. Whilst the virtues ofparsimony are extolled and less interventionism is to be preferred, the'sticks' are ever-present, even if only passively or implicitly. Thisnormative model suggests a benign, rather than corruptive, relationship

", Crawford and Burden (n 11) 74.41 1 Ayres and BraithwaiteJ Responsive Regulation (1992) 35.

" Braithwaite (n 30).42 j Braithwaite 'Rewards and regulation' (2002) 29.Journal of Law and Soiety 12 at 21.13 Braithwaite (n 42) 19.4j Braithwaite 'On speaking softly and carrying sticks' (1997) 47 University of Toronto Law

Journal 1.4' Braithwaite (n 30).

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 14 2007

Page 16: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 15

between co-operation and coercion - one which appears to allow forrestorative justice to operate within a coercive context so long as this isheld in the background, and supportive and non-corrosive of the valuesat hand.

'Sticks and carrots' are evident in the youth offender panel process.The 'stick' lies evidently in the threat of being returned to court, whilstthe 'carrots' take the form of assistance provided by the YOT in arrangingactivities to address the youth's behaviour and, most notably, the youngperson's conviction being considered 'spent' if he or she complies withthe ternms of the agreement by the end of the order. Moreover, the verylanguage of 'contract' constructs a distinct image of human associationthat implies a relationship of exchange in which something givendemands something in return. 46 However, this begs vital questionsregarding the assumptions that are made about both the motivations andcapacities of young people as the subjects of regulation. To what extentare motivations understood as either instrumental or moral? To whatextent are young people conceived as capable of knowing their interestsand articulating their preferences? Exercising 'voice' in a deliberativeforum demands certain attributes and competencies which may not beevident in youths as young as 10 years, notably where surrounded byadults. Some young people may be better capable of exercising theirvoice than others. In order to highlight the complex mix of motivationsand capacities among young people, we can identify four broad ideal,typical assumptions in how regulatory regimes might seek to fostercompliance:

* A 'rational choice' actor - implying instrumental compliance.* A moral agent capable of virtuous acts - appealing to normative

compliance.* A dependent or needy person, lacking sufficient capacity or

competency - demanding assisted or 'enabled' compliance.* An incompetent or pathological individual who lies beyond

motivation, in that he or she is either unable or unwilling -requiring constraint-based compliance.

This typology can be reconfigured diagraminaticaly (Figure 1). The fourcombinations of motivation and levels of competency correspond withfour types of compliance.

46 A Crawford 'Contractual governance of deviant behaviour' (2003) 30Journal of Law andSociety 479.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 15 2007

Page 17: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

16 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PROSPECTS

Figure 1: Types of Motivation, Competency and Compliance

Types of Compliance

Incompetent/ Constraint-Incapable based

Level ofCompetency/

Capacity Lacking

Competency/ Assisted orCapacity Enabled

Dependent

Instrumental: Normative:

Competent Competent (i) Sanctions (i) Acceptance

Rational Moral/ (ii) Rewards of beliefVirtuous (ii) Attachment

(iii) Legitimacy

Type of Type ofMotivation Compliance

Notions of 'sticks and carrots' are rooted in an instrumental understand-ing of behavioural motivation. Traditionally, much of the criminologicalliterature on compliance has focused on the instrumental dynamics ofpolicing, law enforcement and criminal justice, specifically the risksassociated with non-compliance that arise from the threat of sanction.Compliance, here, is associated with deterrence and has largely revolvedaround issues regarding the certainty and alacrity of detection and theseventy of the punishments administered. More recently, there has been arevival of interest in incentive-based 'reward' schemes that seek to fostercompliance through self-interested calculation, by altering the incentivesto non-deviant (or 'pro-social') behaviour. However, by reducing goodbehaviour to an exchange relationship there are moral hazards associatedwith reward.47 Reward flattens motivation to that triggered by self-interest, leaving little space for altruistic motivation. Reward can cloudnobler motives of virtuous behaviour, as moral judgments are eclipsed bybaser instincts of personal gain and individual benefit. In addition,rewards can provoke 'reactance' on the part of the regulated, as canpunishments even more significantly.48 Perceptions of rewards ascontrolling may reduce feelings of self-determination and underminepersonal motivation. They can send negative messages about self-worthand identity. If rewards are interpreted as an attempt to manipulate

Braithwaite (n 36).s Braithwaite (n 36) 16-19.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 16 2007

Page 18: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 17

behaviour, the subjects of regulation may react to this blatant attempt atcontrol in ways that undermine voluntary compliance.4 9

The presence of reward has a flipside problem of 'less eligibility': Whyshould people who behave badly in the first place be rewarded? From apublic policy perspective, should those miscreants who err be givenopportunities otherwise not available to all those who remain lawabiding? If so, what kind of message does this send out to honest,non-troublesome people who prefer not to engage in criminal oranti-social behaviour? This last question becomes even more poignant ifwe believe all people to be rational choice actors, as the easiest way toaccess goods, opportunities and assistance may be to turn to unsociable ordisruptive acts.

Yet, reward might also be understood in a non-instrumentallyreductionist way that moves beyond a self-interested calculation ofcompliance. A negotiated agreement is not just a deal in that it is theproduct of individual self-interest, but also creates a mutual goal that tiesthe parties together. Normatively what is important, then, is not merelythe maximization of self-interest but that reciprocity is seen to be fair;that there is some notional equivalence or proportionality betweenobligations and benefits. This is not an exchange of strict equivalence ofmonetary value or 'like for like'. Reward, particularly where the benefitsare more tangential, may speak to norms of reciprocity and mutuality: thenormative equivalent of Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby.5s Reward mayalso be linked with self-identity in so far as it can serve to build esteemand a positive self-image, both of which may be important whereindividuals suffer from perceptions of low self-worth. Here, Braithwaitehighlights the role of praise as a form of reward that operates as an inverseforce to punishment within a regime of responsive regulation: 'The morevoluntary the compliance is elicited... the more fulsome the praisedispensed'. 5 This idea of praise as reward is built into the youth offenderpanel process whereby review meetings are held every three months orso to monitor the young person's progress in complying with the terms ofthe contract agreed at the initial panel meeting. Praise by the panelmembers towards the young person (and parents, where relevant) is oftenan essential element in encouraging continued compliance and fosteringreintegration.

This highlights that restorative justice practices, and youth offenderpanels in particular, do not merely operate at an instrumental level, they

19 There is some research evidence to suggest that reward schemes work less well with olderyouths and more persistent offenders; See Home Office Preventative Approaches Targeting YoungPeople in Local Authority Residential Care (2004).

0 The name of a character in The Water Babies by Charles Kingsley.s Braithwaite (n 36) 25.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 17 2007

Page 19: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

18 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PROSPECTS

also seek to shape, mould and direct the behaviour and conduct ofindividuals. In so doing, they espouse a deeply normative dimension,embodying virtues and values, as well as a moralized conception ofagency, order and active responsibility. Hence, superimposed upon thestick and the carrot lies 'the sermon'. The motivation evoked here isrooted not in evading a punishment or seeking to obtain a reward but inavoiding feeling bad or fostering commitments to do the right thing.Normative compliance may be provoked by at least one of three levers.The first is the broad acceptance of belief in the norm or rule which theyouth has transgressed. This may be fostered by the realisation of theharm caused by the activities for the victim and or the wider community.Being confronted with the victim and hearing their account of theconsequences of their behaviour may encourage acceptance of thewrongfulness of the act and appropriateness of the rule. Furthermore,signing a contract in the presence of others may have compliance benefitsderived from 'cognitive consistency', whereby people are more likely toact in a way that is consistent with their expressed beliefs and will tend tostick with commitments made publicly. The second lever of normativecompliance may arise as a result of attachments to significant others andthe social obligations that arise within social networks. At one level,moral values may be provoked by feelings of regret towards the victim orexpressed through remorse for the effects upon family or friends. Atanother level, by involving the family the young person's social networksmay be activated in support of compliance. These bonds of attachmentmay foster the fulfilment of commitments, especially where familymembers or significant others are party to the panel meeting, implicatedin the construction of the agreement and signatories of the resultantcontract. A further source of normative compliance is that promoted byperceptions of legitimacy fostered by procedural justice.5 2 Legitimatesocial arrangements that involve fair procedures, treat people with respectand dignity, and provide them with participation in informed decision-making processes will generate normative connitments to compliance.

In reality, young people are liable to be motivated by diverse levers,dependent upon the particular situation in which a decision is made.5 3

The crucial question is whether different assumptions about motivationcan co-exist without adverse implications for compliance. Compliance,however, is also compounded by people's capacity to realize theirinterests and preferences and their competency to assess their normativecommitments in order to make appropriate long-term decisions. Acommon assumption that informs nearly all modes of regulation pertainsto the capacities of the subjects of regulation to rational choice and

52 Tyler (n 13).s3 J Hine Children and Citizenship (2004).

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 18 2007

Page 20: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 19

self-direction.5 4 This is particularly problematic with regard to youngpeople whose cognitive and emotional skills may still be developing. Thisbegs the question: what assumptions about personhood and the capacitiesit implies are embedded within theories of compliance? As Bottomsrightly notes, traditionally little interest has been given to individuals'subjectivity in debates on compliance:

'Those who seek to induce compliance in others very often think they knowwhat it will be like to be on the receiving end of the measures that theyadminister. But... people in power frequently misjudge their audiences'. 55

Instrumental models of compliance based on deterrence often conflatethe potential audience's perception of risk/reward with some calculation ofactual risks and rewards. These are not the same things. In reality, notonly are people's decisions constrained by limits of time, their cognitiveability and the availability of relevant information, but also they mayvalue different things. Their evaluation of the salience for them of givenrisks and rewards may diverge from that of the 'adult' designer ofmechanisms to induce young people's compliance. This dissonance maybe particularly marked where different generational experiences andunderstandings of contemporary risk are involved. In some contexts,especially for young people, the risk may itself be the attraction.Risk-taking may be fun, a conclusion which may jar with a morerisk-averse adult viewpoint. The attractions of risk-laden crininalactivities may express moral or cultural preferences that are not easilycomprehended within a framework of rational choice assumptions aboutrisk and reward. Instrumental models largely ignore the role of emotionsand the expressive dimensions of certain deviant and conformistactivities. This reminds us of the need to link understandings ofsubjectivity with notions of identity as young people explore who theyare and the groups to which they feel they belong.

Bottoms also alludes to the possible interaction effects, both betweenthe various types of compliance and between compliance mechanismsand different sorts of individuals or social groups.5 6 These may serve toreinforce pressures towards compliance, may pull in different directions,potentially undermining each other, or may compound pressures againstcompliance. Furthermore, recognition of the potential combined,compounding and interaction effects has implications for subjectivity.This also highlights the potential for unintended consequences, anever-present by-product of systems of control. How is this interaction of

" Lacey (n 32) 252.55 A E Bottoms 'Compliance and community penalties' in A E Bottoms et al (eds)

Comm unity Penalties: Change and Challenge (2001) at 99.6 Bottoms (n 55) 104.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 19 2007

Page 21: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: POLITICS, POLICIES AND PROSPECTS

competing logics understood and experienced by young people? Whatare the implications of treating a young person as capable one momentand incompetent the next, as a rational actor one day and a moral agentthe next? Young people are subject to diverse, inconsistent messages as totheir competencies as they proceed through their transition to adulthood.The law, for example, prohibits (or allows) young people to do certainthings dependent upon their age, many of which often appear to havelittle logic. More profoundly, young people may experience beingtreated as fully competent - as an adult - as liberating or constraining, oreven perhaps both simultaneously. Denying their youthful status, theirdependencies and limitations may impose obligations and responsibilitiesupon young people that they are not well equipped to deal with. Formany young people (and their parents alike), the experience of youthoffender panels often expresses these contradictory and ambivalentunderstandings of personhood and motivation in ways in which we stillknow little about their effects.

VI CONCLUSIONS

Restorative justice values and interventions remain in their infancy. Westill have much to learn from the institutionalisation of diverse experi-ments that draw upon restorative justice principles for inspiration,however incompletely. In the preceding discussions, I have drawn outsome of the salient issues and dangers raised by the implementation of aparticular set of restorative ideas at the heart of the youth justice system inEngland and Wales. I have sought to explore the contribution ofrestorative justice-inspired interventions to governing future socialrelations by examining the assumptions they embody as regulatoryregimes about behavioural motivation and control as well as theories ofcompliance. In so doing, I have raised more questions than answers.Nevertheless, if restorative justice is to marry successfully the emotiveand affective concerns that restoring or reordering the past evoke with afuture-orientation, restorative justice will need a more robust under-standing of compliance and how to embed crime prevention strategieswithin the various initiatives to which it gives rise. In many senses, youthoffender panels constitute a complex and uncomfortable compromisebetween restorative ideals and criminal justice practices; in whichcoercion structures and constrains a supposedly deliberative and restor-ative process. The assumption that court-ordered interventions willalways be corrupted by the fact that individuals do not initially attend ona wholly voluntary basis is not necessarily borne out by the evidence. Thequality of the deliberative process and the manner in which the parties aretreated once they attend may ultimately be more significant, notably forthose concerned with future compliance. Here, the role of community

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 20 2007

Page 22: 2007ActaJuridica1 Crawford

SITUATING RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE IN CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION 21

involvement is alive with possibilities and pitfalls. It offers potential forensuring greater time and space for human interactions, emotions anddeliberative dialogue in the face of bureaucratic and managerial pressuresthat often serve to undermine restorative intentions. Furthermore, itaffords the possibility of drawing upon local knowledge and lay capacitiesin ways that connect with and enhance values of responsive regulation,forging synergies with local mechanisms of informal social control.Nonetheless, questions about the appropriateness of community repre-sentation, the community interests and values given voice and theirimplications for victim involvement as well as perceptions of neutralityremain vexed. Without knowing its limitations and specifying itsobjectives, mechanisms, assumptions and theories of behaviour, restor-ative justice may be destined to be pulled in competing directions as itseeks to reconcile its values with the logics of dominant criminal justice.

HeinOnline -- 2007 Acta Juridica 21 2007