Skip Navigation



British Journal of Criminology Advance Access published online on March 21, 2005
British Journal of Criminology, doi:10.1093/bjc/azi018
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/6/938    most recent
azi018v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gray, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 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

Article

The Politics of Risk and Young Offenders’ Experiences of Social Exclusion and Restorative Justice

Patricia Gray 1*

1 Principal Lecturer in Criminal Justice Studies, School of Sociology, Politics and Law, University of Plymouth

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Patricia Gray, E-mail: pgray{at}plymouth.ac.uk


  Abstract

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 sets out a new framework for the governance of youth crime, with the primary aim of preventing criminality among young people by addressing the risk factors associated with offending. One of the main technologies of risk management is that of responsibilisation through restorative justice interventions. But the ethos of restorative justice envisages more than just holding young people responsible for their offending; it also professes a commitment to the restoration of victim--offender relations and the reintegration of young offenders into mainstream community life. However, in the prevailing penal climate, the principles of restorative justice have been narrowly interpreted to give undue weight to the responsibilisation of young offenders by challenging perceived deficits in their moral reasoning. The exclusionary socio-economic constraints that limit young offenders’ choices and ability to reintegrate have been obscured. The end result is that restorative justice has become harnessed to the interests of reinforcing ‘moral discipline’ rather than engaging with ‘social justice’. The argument is elaborated through the use of a recently completed research study conducted in the South-West of England, in which young offenders share, through in-depth interviews, their experiences of restorative justice and social exclusion.


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
 Punishment SocietyHome page
P. Gray
The political economy of risk and the new governance of youth crime
Punishment Society, October 1, 2009; 11(4): 443 - 458.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Youth JusticeHome page
P. O'Mahony
The Risk Factors Prevention Paradigm and the Causes of Youth Crime: A Deceptively Useful Analysis?
Youth Justice, August 1, 2009; 9(2): 99 - 114.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Contemporary EthnographyHome page
J. S. Kenney and D. Clairmont
Using the Victim Role as Both Sword and Shield: The Interactional Dynamics of Restorative Justice Sessions
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, June 1, 2009; 38(3): 279 - 307.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Social WorkHome page
L. Bradt and M. Bouverne-De Bie
Victim--offender mediation as a social work practice
International Social Work, March 1, 2009; 52(2): 181 - 193.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J Soc WorkHome page
L. Bradt and M. Bouverne-De Bie
Social Work and the Shift from 'Welfare' to 'Justice'
Br. J. Soc. Work, January 1, 2009; 39(1): 113 - 127.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
S. Field
Practice Cultures and the 'New' Youth Justice in (England and) Wales
Br. J. Criminol., March 1, 2007; 47(2): 311 - 330.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [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.