Youth justice models
in theory and practice
Eef Goedseels
National 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.
2.
3.
4.
What are the main theoretical youth justice models? What do
they represent? On the basis of which criteria can they be
differentiated?
Which model(s) - or elements thereof - can be identified in the
current law?
Which model(s) - or elements thereof - can be identified in the
day-to-day practice of Belgian youth court judges?
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
 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 treatment
Retributive punishment
Restorative accountability
Welfare (treatment, social welfare, re-socialization)
Justice
Restorative
Minimum intervention
Neo-correctionalist
Welfare
Corporatism
Modified Justice
Justice
Crime Control
Messages of sanctions to the offender, the victim and
the community
Cavadino and Dignan (2006, 2007)
Corrado et al (2007-2008, 2010)
Mc Ara (2010)
Maes (2005, 2009)
Just deserts
Welfare
Restorative
Actuarial
Protectional
Judicial
Sanctional
Restorative
Muncie (1999, 2004, 2009)
Welfare
Justice (+ diversion)
Diversion
Custody (or authoritarianism)
Risk management
Pratt (1989)
Welfare
Justice
Corporatism
Reichel (2008)
Welfare
Legalistic
Corporatism
Participatory
Retributive
Rehabilitative
Restorative
(Security)
Walgrave (1996, 2000, 2002)
Winterdyk (2002)
Welfare
Corporate
Justice
Modified justice
Crime control
Participatory
Philosophical assumptions
Institutional arrangements
Policies and processes
General features
Key personnel
Key agency
Justice system goal
Understanding of client behaviour
Purpose of intervention
Objective
Personhood
Social relations
Intervention
Central
Means
Finality
Victim’s position
Judicial guarantees
Duration of intervention
Causes of offending
Purpose of intervention
Key agency
Key personnel
Key characteristics
Objectives
Characteristics
Key personnel
Key agency
Tasks
Understanding of client behaviour
Purpose of intervention
Objectives
Key personnel
Use of formal process
Prime objective
Reference
Means
Objectives
Victim’s position
Criteria of evaluation
Societal context
General features
Key personnel
Key agency
Tasks
Understanding of client behaviour
Purpose of intervention
Objectives
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 metaanalysis
Welfare model
Perception of criminality
Responsibility
Purpose
intervention
of
General objective
Nature of the process
Duration
intervention
Sanction model
Risk management model
Breach of the law
Choice, free will
Related to risk factors
Responsible for the
offence and
consequences
Passive responsibility
(taking punishment)
Action that inflicts
damage upon others
Conflict
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
Offence
Damage / harm
Offence
Risks
Retribution
Deterrence
Confirmation of the
rule
Moral disapproval
Moral reform
Respond to individual Restoration of a moral
needs
/ legal balance
Restoration of the
harm caused
(Reconciliation)
Confirmation of the
rule
Moral disapproval
Moral reform
Restoration of a social
balance
Restoration of the
legal balance
Neutralisation
Deterrence
Supervision / control
Therapy
Treatment
…
Crime prevention
Public safety
Crime prevention
Informal, flexible
procedures
Crime prevention
Formal procedures
Crime prevention
Informal, extrajudicial
and voluntary
processes
Crime prevention
Formal procedures,
but certain degree of
informality
Fixed, determinate
Flexible, to be
mutually agreed
Fixed, determinate
In proportion to the
harm caused
Symptom of personal, Breach of the law
social factors
Choice, free will
Not responsible for
the offence,
responsible for the
consequences
Passive responsibility
(just cooperate)
(reference Offender
Main focus
point)
of
Retributive / justice Restorative model
model
the Treatment,
(re)education
Help
Protection (of
juvenile)
the Indeterminate (until
objective has been
achieved)
Proportionality
In proportion to
individual needs
In proportion to the
offence
Key professional
Youth experts
Judges
Lawyers
Source of information
Social / medical
reports
Police reports /
charges
Law
Various types of
extrajudicial, administrative
or civil procedures (quick
and efficient)
Indeterminate (until risk is
over)
In proportion to the
In proportion to the
offence (~ background (estimated) risk
/ context of offender)
Moderators, mediators Youth court judges
Judicial experts
Youth lawyers
Youth experts
Perception /
significance of parties
involved
Police reports /
charges
Law + (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
Thank you for your attention!
For more information
Eef.Goedseels@law.kuleuven.be
Eef.goedseels@just.fgov.be
15