Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSuzuki, M
dc.contributor.authorWood, WR
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-13T23:06:49Z
dc.date.available2017-07-13T23:06:49Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn1028-2580
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/10282580.2017.1311194
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/341802
dc.description.abstractRestorative justice (RJ) encompasses a widely diverging set of practices whereby those most affected by crime are encouraged to meet, to discuss the effects of harms caused by one party to another, and to agree upon the best possible redress of harms when appropriate. In its inception in the late 1970s, RJ was conceptualized and developed as an alternative to formal criminal justice practices. Since this time, however, RJ has largely moved from being an alternative to criminal justice practices to an ‘alternative’ practice within criminal justice systems. This institutionalization has resulted in the significant growth of RJ practices, but has also resulted in RJ being used for criminal justice system goals that are at odds with the needs of victims or offenders. This paper examines the use of the Youth Justice Group Conferencing Program in Victoria, Australia. Drawing from interviews with conference conveners, our research highlights problems related to administrative ‘constraints’ and ‘co-options’ in conferencing in terms of referrals, preparation of conference participants, and victim participation. Following presentation of findings, we conclude with a discussion of implications for the use of RJ within a highly institutionalized setting.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom274
dc.relation.ispartofpageto292
dc.relation.ispartofissue2
dc.relation.ispartofjournalContemporary Justice Review
dc.relation.ispartofvolume20
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCriminology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCriminology not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4402
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode440299
dc.titleCo-option, coercion and compromise: challenges of restorative justice in Victoria, Australia
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscript (AM)
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
gro.rights.copyright© 2017 Taylor & Francis (Routledge). This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Contemporary Justice Review on 02 Apr 2017available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10282580.2017.1311194
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorWood, William


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record