NCJ Number
99415
Journal
British Journal of Criminology Volume: 25 Issue: 7 Dated: (July 1985) Pages: 267-279
Date Published
1985
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This examination of juvenile restitution as practiced by the Corby Juvenile Liaison Bureau (England) encourages greater use of restitution as a juvenile diversion alternative but cautions that each case must be sensitively handled so that restitution does not replicate the punishment paradigm that diversion seeks to avoid.
Abstract
Of the 492 referrals handled by the Juvenile Liaison Bureau between November 1981 and November 1982, 77 involved some form of restitution. This study interviewed 17 of the juveniles who participated in a restitutionary diversion. The two general types of restitution implemented consisted of the 'institutional' restitution model and the 'personal' restitution model. Institutional restitution involved making amends to a representative of an organization harmed by the juvenile's acts. Personal restitution occurred when the juvenile made some reparation to an individual directly harmed by the offense. The institutional restitution model apparently was unsatisfactory as experienced by the juveniles, since their feelings paralled those of juveniles who undergo formal processing and sanctions. The representative of the aggrieved institution was viewed by the juveniles as a punitive authority figure. Little rehabilitative effects were noted in this kind of restitution. The personal restitution model, although heterogeneous and sometimes problematic, apparently carried more rehabilitative potential, as the juvenile was involved with the victim's feelings and the personalization of the harm done. Offenses involving peer victims, however, may require counseling to delineate the juvenile's responsibility for the consequences of the offense, particularly when the offender perceives victim responsibility for the incident. Excerpts from the interviews are quoted, and 20 references are listed.