Skip Navigation


British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on July 18, 2005
British Journal of Criminology 2006 46(2):334-356; doi:10.1093/bjc/azi071
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/2/334    most recent
azi071v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Daly, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 46:334-356 (2006)
© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Restorative Justice and Sexual Assault

An Archival Study of Court and Conference Cases

Kathleen Daly*

* School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Mt Gravatt Campus, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia; k.daly{at}griffith.edu.au.

As restorative justice has grown in popularity worldwide, mainly in response to youth crime, controversy surrounds its use for sexual, partner and family violence cases. With some exceptions, all jurisdictions have put these offences beyond the reach of restorative justice for both youth and adult offenders and, thus, empirical evidence is lacking. This paper presents findings from an archival study of nearly 400 cases of youth sexual assault, which were finalized in court and by conference or formal caution over a six-and-a-half-year period in South Australia, to address these questions: (1) What differentiates a court from a conference case? (2) What happens once a case goes to court, e.g. what share of cases is dismissed and how do penalties vary for court and conference cases? (3) From a victim’s point of view, what appears to be the better option—having one’s case go to court or conference? Contrary to the concerns raised by critics of conferencing, from a victim’s advocacy perspective, the conference process may be less victimizing than the court process and its penalty regime may produce more effective outcomes.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
K. Daly
Setting the Record Straight and A Call for Radical Change: A Reply to Annie Cossins on 'Restorative Justice and Child Sex Offences'
Br. J. Criminol., July 1, 2008; 48(4): 557 - 566.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
A. Cossins
Restorative Justice and Child Sex Offences: The Theory and the Practice
Br. J. Criminol., May 1, 2008; 48(3): 359 - 378.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Punishment SocietyHome page
B. Bouhours and K. Daly
Youth sex offenders in court: An analysis of judicial sentencing remarks
Punishment Society, October 1, 2007; 9(4): 371 - 394.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.