Presentation Transcript

1. Youth justice models in theory and practice EefGoedseels National Institute of Criminalistics and Criminology (NICC) Leuven Institute of Criminology (KULeuven – LINC)
2. Content Brief presentation of PhD project Context and objective of the study Results of the literature review concerning youth justice models (Ethnographic study)
3. 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
4. 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 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?
5. 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
6. 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
7. Use of YJM Comparative research (models as ‘conceptual tools’) Historical perspective Empirical research Normative-theoretical perspective
8. 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
9. 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’
10. 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)
11. 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 meta-analysis
12. 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
13. Thank you for your attention! For more information Eef.Goedseels@law.kuleuven.be Eef.goedseels@just.fgov.be