Youth justice models in theory and practice

Eef GoedseelsNational Institute of Criminalistics and Criminology (NICC)

Leuven Institute of Criminology (KULeuven – LINC)

Content

Brief presentation of PhD project Context and objective of the study Results of the literature review

concerning youth justice models (Ethnographic study)

PhD. Context of the study Debate on how juvenile delinquents must or can be best

handled Differences between the North and South part of the

country: initial starting point of the study Switch to core issue ’the judge’ 2006: Act reformed

• Diverse underlying principles (elements of different youth justice models)

• Not legislator, but ‘judge’ who defines the ultimate finality

PhD. Research questions Which model(s) - or elements thereof - can be identified

in the day-to-day practice of Belgian youth court judges? Specific research questions

1. What are the main theoretical youth justice models? What do they represent? On the basis of which criteria can they be differentiated?

2. Which model(s) - or elements thereof - can be identified in the current law?

3. Which model(s) - or elements thereof - can be identified in the day-to-day practice of Belgian youth court judges?

4. Are there elements - specific to the case, the judge and/or the context - related to the presence (dominance) of one or another model?

PhD. Methodology Literature review In-depth study of legal framework Ethnographic study in four judicial districts, 10 judges,

about 100 real cases. For each case: File study Observation in court room Interview with judge Study of (written) judgement

Þ data-triangulation General interview

Qualitative research methods Judge as an actor, without losing sight of the wider –structural

and cultural - context

YJM. Literature review Process

• Focus on authors who use a models ‘typology’• Saturation point

General overview• Traditionally, two youth justice models: welfare vs.

justice model• Review: more differentiated picture

Author Models Criteria

Bazemore & Umbreit (1995, 2004)  

Individual treatmentRetributive punishmentRestorative accountability

Messages of sanctions to the offender, the victim and the community

Cavadino and Dignan (2006, 2007)   

Welfare (treatment, social welfare, re-socialization) JusticeRestorative Minimum interventionNeo-correctionalist

Philosophical assumptionsInstitutional arrangementsPolicies and processes 

Corrado et al (2007-2008, 2010)  

WelfareCorporatismModified JusticeJusticeCrime Control

General featuresKey personnelKey agencyJustice system goalUnderstanding of client behaviourPurpose of interventionObjective

Mc Ara (2010) Just deserts WelfareRestorativeActuarial

PersonhoodSocial relationsIntervention

Maes (2005, 2009)  

ProtectionalJudicialSanctionalRestorative

CentralMeansFinalityVictim’s positionJudicial guaranteesDuration of intervention

Muncie (1999, 2004, 2009) WelfareJustice (+ diversion)DiversionCustody (or authoritarianism)Risk management 

Causes of offendingPurpose of interventionKey agencyKey personnelKey characteristicsObjectives

Pratt (1989)       

WelfareJusticeCorporatism

CharacteristicsKey personnelKey agencyTasksUnderstanding of client behaviourPurpose of interventionObjectives

Reichel (2008) WelfareLegalisticCorporatismParticipatory

Key personnelUse of formal processPrime objective

Walgrave (1996, 2000, 2002) Retributive Rehabilitative Restorative (Security)

ReferenceMeansObjectivesVictim’s positionCriteria of evaluationSocietal context

Winterdyk (2002) WelfareCorporateJusticeModified justiceCrime controlParticipatory 

General featuresKey personnelKey agencyTasksUnderstanding of client behaviourPurpose of interventionObjectives

Use of YJM

Comparative research (models as ‘conceptual tools’)

Historical perspective Empirical research Normative-theoretical perspective

Sense or non-sense of YJM (1) Models as ‘conceptual tools’: accuracy and

applicability? Models in a more ‘normative’ debate

• Models offer ‘menus’, but each situation demands an ‘à la carte’ approach (pragmatic approach)

>< • Fundamental approach: a model is needed as a

starting point for the coherency / legitimacy of a system

Sense or non-sense of YJM (2)PhD study Not a normative perspective Models as ‘conceptual tools’

• To describe and analyse the Belgian youth justice system (legislation and day-to-day practice)

• Assumption: realty is an amalgam of elements from different paradigms, but theoretical models will make it possible – in line with Cavadino & Dignan (2006) – to gain an insight into the ‘balance of influences’

Five key YJM Difficulties

• Different names (f.ex justice model vs. retributive model)• Different meanings• No clear description

Five key models• Welfare model• Retributive model (or justice model)• Restorative model• Sanction model (or modified justice model)• Risk management model (or actuarial model)

YJM. Four types of criteria Few authors explain choice or criteria themselves Four groups of criteria (inspired by Cavadino & Dignan, 2006)

• Underlying philosophical assumptions• Process characteristics

Legal safeguards Parties involved

• Institutional or system characteristics• Societal characteristics

=> Own typology on the basis of the completed meta-analysis

  Welfare model Retributive / justice model

Restorative model Sanction model Risk management model

Perception of criminality Symptom of personal, social factors

Breach of the lawChoice, free will

Action that inflicts damage upon othersConflict

Breach of the lawChoice, free will

Related to risk factors

Responsibility Not responsible for the offence, responsible for the consequences Passive responsibility (just cooperate)

Responsible for the offence and consequences Passive responsibility (taking punishment)

Responsible for the offence and consequences Actively (learn to) take up responsibility

Responsible for the offence and consequences Actively (learn to) take up responsibility

Dubious 

Main focus (reference point)

Offender Offence Damage / harm Offence Risks

Purpose of the intervention

Treatment, (re)educationHelpProtection (of juvenile)

Retribution DeterrenceConfirmation of the rule Moral disapprovalMoral reform

Restoration of the harm caused(Reconciliation)  

Confirmation of the rule Moral disapprovalMoral reform

NeutralisationDeterrenceSupervision / controlTherapyTreatment…

General objective Respond to individual needs Crime prevention

Restoration of a moral / legal balance Crime prevention

Restoration of a social balance Crime prevention

Restoration of the legal balance Crime prevention

Crime preventionPublic safety

Nature of the process Informal, flexible procedures

Formal procedures Informal, extrajudicial and voluntary processes

Formal procedures, but certain degree of informality

Various types of extrajudicial, administrative or civil procedures (quick and efficient)

Duration of the intervention

Indeterminate (until objective has been achieved)

Fixed, determinate Flexible, to be mutually agreed

Fixed, determinate Indeterminate (until risk is over)

Proportionality In proportion to individual needs

In proportion to the offence

In proportion to the harm caused

In proportion to the offence (~ background / context of offender)

In proportion to the (estimated) risk

Key professional Youth experts JudgesLawyers

Moderators, mediators Youth court judgesYouth lawyersYouth experts

Judicial experts

Source of information Social / medical reports

Police reports / chargesLaw

Perception / significance of parties involved

Police reports / chargesLaw + (limited) reports

Risk assessment

Ethnographic study Selection and development of key concepts or topics

• Inspired by literature review • Criteria relevant for day-to-day practice • Basis for the development of the observation scheme, the topic list for

the interviews, the ‘grille d’analyse’ Collection of data completed in two Flemish districts Analysis

• Data are being analysed case by case, judge by judge, district by district

• Aim Description of the model(s) – or elements thereof - that can be

found in the daily practice of Belgian youth court judges (if it has a sense to speak in terms of models at all?!)

Examination if there are some regularities that can be identified

15

Thank you for your attention!

For more informationEef.Goedseels@law.kuleuven.be

Eef.goedseels@just.fgov.be