Supporting Young Offenders through Restorative Justice: Parents as (In)appropriate Adults

Abstract

Abstract Set within the wider context of responsibilising youth justice policies, this article heeds academic calls for further research into parent/child dynamics within restorative justice processes (Prichard, 2002; Bradt et al., 2007), by critically analysing and evaluating the role of parents as supporters of young offenders. The aim is not to call into question the entitlement of parents to be present during restorative processes, but to critically examine their suitability to play the role of designated supporters. Drawing upon the literature as well as empirical work conducted by the first author (Hoyle et al., 2002), it will be argued that many of the moralising and responsibilising messages directed at the offender find currency with parents in a way which makes them feel ashamed, embarrassed and as if they themselves are on trial. Parents react to this discomfort by engaging in apologising, neutralising, dominating and punitive discourses. Their reactions not only cast doubt upon their ability to be composed and supportive of their children, but more importantly might adversely affect the dynamics of the process itself. Parental reactions might thereby deny the young person the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and to contribute to the discussion on appropriate reparation, which could ultimately thwart the chance for reintegration. Keywords: Restorative Justice; Parenting; Responsibilisation; Youth Justice Responsiblising Youth Justice After decades during which young offenders were subject to repeat cautions (Audit Commission, 1996), the New Labour government of 1997 made clear in its White Paper No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales' (Home Office, 1997) its commitment to holding offenders to account for their behaviours, primarily, though not exclusively, through the pursuit of restorative justice practices. Restorative ideals were enshrined in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced restorative justice (henceforth RJ) processes in youth justice, with the central aims of 'restoration, reintegration and responsibility' (Home Office, 1997 pp31-32). However, concern has been expressed that '...in the prevailing penal climate, the principles of restorative justice have been narrowly interpreted to give undue weight to the responsibilisation of young offenders' (Gray, 2005 p938). This is partly because alongside restorative measures, the Act also introduced interventions aimed directly at responsibilising not only youths, but also their parents, including pre-emptive interventions such as Parenting Orders and Parenting Contracts: The Government is determined to reinforce the responsibility of young offenders - and their parents - for their delinquent behaviour. . . .Parents of young offenders may not directly be to blame for the crimes of their children, but parents have to be responsible for providing their children with proper care and control (Home Office, 1997, s. 4-2-4.6.; see also: Downes and Morgan, 2002; Gray, 2005; Williams, 2004). Wary of the perils of grafting restorative justice onto a youth justice system that has competing priorities, Brian Williams saw the government's apparent commitment to restorative justice 'as part of a strategy of responsibilization' (2004 p5), a strategy criticised by Garland and others for 'devolving] responsibility for crime prevention on to agencies, organizations and individuals which are quite outside the state and to persuade them to act appropriately' (1996 p452). The Role of Offenders' Parents within Restorative Justice Although academic interest in RJ is longstanding, the central concern of this article, namely, the dangers of responsibilising parents, and in particular their suitability to play the role of offender supporters in restorative processes, has attracted little attention. Where parental involvement is discussed, it 'is almost automatically assumed to be in the best interest of all the parties' (Bradt et al. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.