Experiences of youth justice: Youth justice discourses and their
multiple effects

McAlister, S., & Carr, N. (2014). Experiences of youth justice: Youth justice discourses and their multiple effects.
Youth Justice: An International Journal, 14(3), 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225414549694

Published in:
Youth Justice: An International Journal

Document Version:
Peer reviewed version

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:
Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

Publisher rights
© 2014 The Author

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other
copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated
with these rights.

Take down policy
The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to
ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the
Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.

Download date:06. Apr. 2021

https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225414549694
https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/experiences-of-youth-justice-youth-justice-discourses-and-their-multiple-effects(381addd8-1254-4d24-a43a-86ce276527ea).html


1 
 

Experiences of youth justice: Youth justice discourses and their multiple 
effects  
 
Siobhán McAlister 

(School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work), Queen’s University Belfast, UK 

Nicola Carr 

(School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work), Queen’s University Belfast, UK 

 

Corresponding author: Siobhán McAlister, School of Sociology, Social Policy and 
Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK, BT71LP 

Email: s.mcalister@qub.ac.uk 

 
Abstract  
Interventions within youth justice systems draw on a range of rationales and philosophies. 

Traditionally demarcated by a welfare/justice binary, the complex array of contemporary 

rationales meld different philosophies and practices, suggesting a mutability that gives this 

sphere a continued (re)productive and felt effect. While it may be increasingly difficult to 

ascertain which of these discourses is dominant in different jurisdictions in the UK, particular 

models of justice are perceived to be more prominent (Muncie, 2006). Traditionally it is 

assumed that Northern Ireland prioritises restoration, Wales prioritises rights, England 

priorities risk and Scotland welfare (McVie, 2011; Muncie, 2008, 2011). However, how these 

discourses are enacted in practice, how multiple and competing rationales circulate within 

them and most fundamentally how they are experienced by young people is less clear. This 

paper, based on research with young people who have experienced the full range of 

interventions in the youth justice system in Northern Ireland examines their narratives of 

‘justice’. It considers how different discourses might influence the same intervention and how 

the deployment of multiple rationalities gives the experience of ‘justice’ its effect.    

 

Key words 
Restorative justice, custody, youth justice discourse, experiencing justice  

  



2 
 

Introduction 
 

Across the UK the expansion of criminal and quasi-criminal interventions and modes 

of governance, alongside varied disposals and sanctions, has resulted in youth 

justice systems that enact multiple, contradictory and competing discourses 

(Fergusson, 2007; Muncie, 2004, 2006; Muncie and Goldson, 2006). While these are 

differentiated across time and place, the youth justice systems in separate 

jurisdictions within the UK tend to be associated with particular models of justice 

(e.g. welfare, rights, risk, restoration), and aspects of multiple discourses are evident 

in all. Research also demonstrates disjuncture between discourse, practice and 

experience whereby welfare-based models can be experienced coercively and 

punitively (McAra, 2006; Piacentini and Walters, 2006), and children’s rights can be 

used to justify intrusive interventions (Muncie, 2006).  

 

Further, the very nature of the discourses of welfare, rights, risk, responsibilisation, 

contain inherent tensions - care and control, child protection and public protection, 

child rights and victim rights. Thus, even where a particular model of youth justice is 

prominent, the meaning and experience is dependent on how interventions are 

institutionalised and enacted. Responses may be at the same time diversionary yet 

highly restrictive, welfare orientated yet punitive, rights focused yet exclusionary. 

 

Based on the narratives of young people who have encountered numerous criminal 

justice interventions, and set within the context of the Northern Irish system which 

prioritises restorative practices and a human rights policy discourse, this paper 

examines how the competing ideologies and aims of the system are experienced. 

Taking the forms of ‘justice’ most often administered to young people in an ongoing 

study, we consider their experiences of youth conferencing and custody. Youth 

Conferencing, based on the principles of restorative justice, encapsulates some of 

the multiple and competing discourses of youth justice - responsibilisation, 

punishment, reintegration, risk, (victim’s) rights. Custody is most often associated 

with the philosophical principles of punishment and public protection through 

incapacitation. Yet safeguards exist to limit its use with children and to protect those 

subjected to it. How these multiple and at times competing philosophies play out in 

the experiences of such interventions is examined.  



3 
 

 

Youth justice discourses 
 

Responses to young people in conflict with the law have usually taken account of 

their differential status to adults. Traditional justifications for intervention – welfare 

and justice – although less explicit today, continue to influence policy (Fergusson, 

2007). As such, tensions and contradictions between care and control, welfare and 

justice exist alongside other articulations - rights and responsibilisation, punitiveness 

and informalisation - and are reflected to varying degrees (and sometimes 

simultaneously), in UK youth justice systems.  

 

Welfare-orientated policies and practices are premised on the special status of 

children, particularly regarding ‘responsibility’. Involvement in crime is linked with 

‘social problems’, symbolic of deeper social and psychological difficulties rather than 

free rational and informed choice (Muncie, 2004). Interventions, therefore, prioritise 

the welfare needs of individual children which are better responded to outside the 

criminal justice system. Key is the aim to be child-centred, needs-focused and 

diversionary/ non-criminalising. These features appear to have much in common with 

more recent rights-based discourses of youth justice. Elements of this welfare model 

are also evident in current policies around diversion, prevention/ early intervention 

and multi-agency responses.  

 

However, welfare-based initiatives can also serve disciplinary and regulatory 

functions, resulting in net-widening and disproportionate interventions (Brown, 2005; 

Cohen, 1985; Muncie, 2004). Demonstrating the disjuncture between justice as 

discourse and justice as practiced and experienced, the welfare-orientated model 

can involve high levels of coercion and punitiveness with legal rights eroded and 

children silenced (Muncie, 2004; Piacentini and Walters, 2006). Welfare can, 

therefore, be about control as much as care, it can be punitive as well as protective. 

 

Concerns regarding lack of due process, proportionality and implementation of the 

rule of law, saw justice-based approaches foregrounded in recent years. With 

proponents arguing that a renewed focus on the offence (‘deeds’), rather than the 

‘offender’ (‘needs’) would result in more proportionate responses  (Muncie, 2004). 



4 
 

Young people in conflict with the law, while recognised as different to adults, are still 

rational actors, and thus responsible for their actions.  Such rationalities marked the 

beginnings of what has been termed a ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice (Muncie, 2008) 

evidenced by ‘a general diminution of welfare-based modes of governance in favour 

of various “justice” based responsibilisation and managerial strategies’ (Muncie, 

2005: 38).  
 

Taking the changes of the past few decades together (e.g. adulteration, penal 

expansionism, risk factor prevention and responsibilisation), Muncie (2008) argues 

that modes of youth governance are more punitive, repressive and expansive today. 

They are focused on punishment and individual responsibility rather than welfare, 

child protection and support. While rates of custody have traditionally be taken as an 

indication of a punitive and authoritarian approach, Cohen’s (1985) seminal work on 

the ‘dispersal of discipline’ is a reminder that a decline in imprisonment is not 

equated with less punishment and control. Further, in considering the fall in rates of 

youth custody in England and Wales, Bateman (2012) argues with reference to 

recent policy discourse, that this alone may not signal a shift in punitiveness.  

 

Risk, responsibilisation and rights: Multiple and contradictory discourses 

 

Contemporary youth justice involves multiple modes and layers of governance 

(Muncie, 2006). Recent initiatives focused on the prevention of offending through risk 

management illustrate the multiple and contradictory rationales within youth justice 

policy. Risk identification and management are premised on the basis of managing 

risk through intervening early in the lives of those displaying risk factors (Case, 

2006). While early intervention programmes are presented as a benefit to the child 

and society, their welfare and rights-based ethos has been questioned  (see Haydon 

this issue).  

 

In line with neo-liberal governance and the risk management agenda, a key element 

of contemporary youth justice is responsibilisation (Phoenix and Kelly 2013). Here 

the young offender is considered a ‘rational, responsible decision maker …’ (Gray, 

2005: 938). The philosophical principles of restorative justice have married well with 

the responsibilisation agenda (Gray, 2005), because restorative justice emphasises 



5 
 

an acknowledgement by the young person of the harm done. The focus on 

restoration and reintegration, however, also reflects the welfare discourse. Thus 

restorative justice can embody some of the tensions between welfare and justice - 

holding young people to account but with a view towards them reintegrating into law-

abiding society. 

 

Research into young people’s experiences of restorative justice has highlighted 

some of these tensions (Crawford and Newburn, 2003; Newbury, 2008). The range 

of interventions that often constitute restorative practices are individually focused, 

concentrating on the attitudes and behaviours of young people rather than the 

structural conditions of their lives (Gray, 2005). Newbury’s (2008) analysis 

challenges the reintegrative functions of restorative justice, noting that behaviour is 

unlikely to change if young people feel they must accept responsibility despite 

mitigating factors and broader explanations.  

 

Further demonstrating the tension between welfare and justice, restorative justice is 

embedded in the language of inclusion, participation and rights. Particularly suited to 

young people due to its ‘informal’ and sometimes diversionary nature, it incorporates 

the rights and views of victims and young people (e.g. Articles 12 and 40 of the 

UNCRC). Yet restorative justice can be experienced as punitive, exclusionary and 

shaming (Daly, 2002; Eliaerts and Dumortier, 2002). Concerns have also been 

raised regarding procedural safeguards in a forum where legal representation is 

absent  (Eliaerts and Dumortier, 2002). While some research demonstrates relatively 

high levels of ‘engagement’ and participation by young people (e.g. Crawford and 

Newburn, 2003), this engagement and the levels of understanding of some has been 

questioned (Newbury, 2008). Whether young people feel they have a choice but to 

engage in the process, to accept responsibility and the resulting outcome is also 

debated (Hudson, 2003; O’Mahony and Campbell, 2006).  

 

In sum multiple, competing and contradictory discourses are reflected to different 

degrees in youth justice systems and interventions.  While this is acknowledged, how 

these discourses play out and more fundamentally how they are experienced by 

young people is less clear. This paper, based on research with young people who 

have encountered a broad range of youth justice interventions  examines their 



6 
 

experiences of ‘justice’. Through their narratives we consider how different 

discourses might influence the same intervention and how the deployment of 

multiple rationalities gives the experiences of ‘justice’ its effect.    

 
Youth justice in Northern Ireland: Prioritising restoration 
 

Elements of broader trends in youth justice including an increased focus on risk and 

the centrality of the victim are evident in Northern Ireland’s youth justice system (see 

Muncie, 2008, 2011; Muncie and Goldson, 2006). However, political conflict and 

subsequent conflict transformation have shaped the contours and structures of youth 

justice practice. This is most evident in the emergence of restorative justice as the 

main disposal.  

 

A core component of the peace process (1998) was a commitment to review policing 

and criminal justice and to embed accountability, human rights and transparency into 

institutions and their practices. Following from the Criminal Justice Review (2000), 

the Justice (NI) Act (2002) established a central agency with responsibility for youth 

justice and set out the aims of the new youth justice system. Here the principle aim is 

the protection of the public through preventing offending by children. Emphasising 

the centrality of responsibilisation, young people are to be encouraged ‘to recognise 

the effects of crime and to take responsibility for their actions’. These aims are to be 

implemented with consideration for the welfare of the child. The ordering of these 

principles, in particular the relegation of welfare has been the subject of some 

critique (Youth Justice Review Team, 2011). Further, these aims demonstrate the 

multiple discourses underpinning the system. The discourses of risk, 

responsibilisation and public protection sit alongside those of welfare, rehabilitation 

and rights.  

 

The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act (2002) introduced new diversionary disposals, 

community and custodial orders and formalised restorative justice through the Youth 

Conference Service. Adapting methods of conflict resolution restorative justice is 

reflective of the wider aims of transitional justice intended to close the legitimacy gap 

in state administered criminal justice (Doak and O’Mahony, 2011). The legislation 

provides that where a young person admits guilt the Public Prosecution Service 



7 
 

(PPS) or the Court must direct that a Youth Justice Conference is held unless the 

offence falls under a small number of excluded serious offencesi. The output of the 

youth conference, the Conference Plan, is approved by either of the directing parties 

(PPS or Court). Conference Plans typically contain requirements for the young 

person to write a letter of apology to a victim, and to engage in forms of reparative 

work and other purposeful activities.  

 

Over time the numbers of youth conferences has risen markedly. A total of 1,556 

referrals for a conference were made to the Youth Justice Agency in 2012-2013 

compared to 172 referrals in 2005 (DeCodts and O’Neill, 2014). As youth 

conferencing has expanded and become the primary youth justice response, the 

numbers of young people in custody has declined. The transformation of Northern 

Ireland’s youth justice system and in particular the emphasis on restoration has been 

hailed internationally as a success story (Doak and O’Mahony, 2011; Jacobson and 

Gibbs, 2009). However, this transformation is not uncontested (Convery, 2013; 

Convery et al., 2008). In respect of restorative justice, the efficacy and proportionality 

of multiple conferencing has been questioned (CJINI, 2008; Youth Justice Review 

Team, 2011). Criticisms similar to those previously described have emerged in local 

research. Specifically: problems with the focus on individual responsibility; feelings of 

a lack of inclusion and ‘equal’ input from young people; oppressive and punitive 

proceedings and disproportionate outcomes (see Maruna et al., 2007; O’Mahony 

and Campbell, 2006).  

 

Overall, however, the experiential aspects of youth justice have been given less 

coverage in broader narratives about system transformation. A decline in the use of 

custody and the prominence of restoration do not necessarily account for how justice 

is perceived in practice – whether for example restoration is found to be 

responsibilising or reintegrative. Given the multiplicity of rationales and the range of 

young people to whom they are applied inevitably there will be differing accounts of 

these experiences. In the next section we explore how such rationales are played 

out for young people.    

 

Methodology and background to the study 
 



8 
 

The data presented in this article is based on interviews with young people who were 

remanded or serving a sentence in Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC). 

Woodlands is a purpose-built facility managed and staffed by the Youth Justice 

Agency (YJA). The centre accommodates almost all young people under 18 

detained within the criminal justice systemii. Young people can also be detained here 

under Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) provisions, following arrest and charge 

and pending their court appearance. The ongoing study, funded by the YJA, focuses 

on the transitions of young people into and out of custody. Research participants 

were selected on a purposive basis taking account of the heterogeneity of the 

population including gender, routes of admission, offences and home areaiii.  

 

The sample includes 21 young people, two young women and 19 young men, aged 

between 15 and 17 at the time of the first interview. The first interview normally takes 

place in the JJC prior to the young person’s release. It comprises of a life-history 

interview (Atkinson, 1998; Coles and Knowles, 2001), where young people are 

invited to ‘tell the story of their life’ including the reasons why they are detained at 

this time. In addition to exploring the young person’s previous contacts with the 

criminal justice system, the interview explores their hopes and plans for the future, 

particularly the plans in place for their release from custody. Follow-up interviews 

take place following young people’s release from custody; here the focus is on their 

transition from custody, what has been happening in their lives and any challenges 

that have arisen. The data presented in this article focuses specifically on young 

people’s experiences of justice. Here we focus on two aspects of the youth justice 

system – restorative justice (youth conferencing) and custody.  
 
Young people’s experiences of justice 
 

Most of the young people had multiple interactions with the youth justice system over 

a sustained period of time. A number had contact with the criminal justice system 

prior to reaching the age of criminal responsibility (age 10) through family 

involvement and contacts with the police. Experiences with the police were often 

fraught. There were numerous accounts of feeling over-policed (particularly in 

discussing the policing of bail conditions), and expressions of discrimination and 

targeting. In addition to formal policing, around half of the sample (n=11) had also 



9 
 

experienced ‘policing’ by paramilitaries. This included intimidation, threats and 

warnings, physical beatings and exilings. This informal punishment, regulation and 

control when added to experiences with the formal criminal justice system, amounted 

to multiple forms of punishment.  

 

While for a small number of young people contact with the criminal justice system 

was minimal, more usual was a long history of involvement with young people having 

experienced a number of previous interventions, including remands into custody, 

extensive bail conditions, youth justice conferences and community-based sanctions. 

Under legislation there is no limit to the number of youth conferences that a young 

person can be made subject to and many of the young people that we interviewed 

had taken part in multiple conferences.  

 

Restorative justice 

 

Based on restorative justice principles, the purpose of the youth conference as 

outlined in guidance for young people is toiv: 

 

… give you a chance to tell the people at the meeting why you committed  the 

offence. It gives the victim a chance to tell you how they have been affected 

by what you did to him or her. …The meeting will want you to: …. Agree an 

action plan to make up for what you have done and stop offending.  

 

Young people reported variable experiences of this process. For some, 

conferencing, or at least what they were required to do for their conference plan, 

provided some structure in their lives. Kyle, who was on remand for a serious violent 

offence and who had multiple previous offences, explained how the activities 

required under his conference plans provided him with something to fill his time: 

 
I:  …did you ever find  the conferences useful or helpful? 
R:  No, it just got me off the streets really. So they gave me something 
 stable so they did, ‘cos I was going in and out of there (YJA) 4 or 5 

 days a week like so I was. And if I hadn’t been doing it, I would 

 have been just lying awake getting stoned like.      Kyle (age 16) 



10 
 

 

It is noteworthy that it was not the content of the programmes that Kyle identified as 

useful, or the conference itself, rather that the Plan provided him with purposeful 

activity. 

 

At the time of his initial interview, Kevin was serving his first custodial sentence for 

involvement in riotous behaviour. He had previous convictions for similar offences 

and had been through the youth conference process. His account of some of the 

requirements of his conference plan provides an example of having to confront the 

impacts of his offending. On this occasion Kevin describes visiting a residence to 

hear about the impact of rioting on those living there: 

 
…because I was rioting outside an ‘aul (old) people’s home, I went up…and I 

writ them a letter saying I was sorry, and then I went up telling them I was all 

sorry. And then they took me on a wee tour around the place…I felt alright 

saying sorry, but I felt like an asshole for rioting outside their place, so I did...It 

made me feel a bit lousy on them and all because of how close it was…I went 

and met the manager, ‘cos they were saying – ‘how do you feel’?, and all And 

I said – ‘I feel like a …dickhead’ and all that there. And I went around and said 

sorry and I was shaking people’s hands saying I was sorry for rioting outside 

and I writ them a letter… 

 

This experience had a clear impact on Kevin. As he described it, meeting the 

residents of the home made him feel a sense of shame. The shaming element of 

restorative justice draws on the theory of ‘reintegrative shaming’ (Braithwaite, 1989), 

which contends that social disapproval impacts on how a person feels about their 

offence, ideally dissuading them from such behaviour in the future. A component of 

this approach, and an underlying premise of restorative justice, is that a reintegration 

or restoration takes place for the victim of the offence and for the offender (Harris, 

2006). Thus, a distinction is drawn between reintegrative shaming – i.e. shaming that 

is respectful of the person, avoids labelling and ends with forgiveness – and 

stigmatizing shaming (Ahmed and Braithwaite, 2005).   

 



11 
 

While Kevin spoke about the salutary effect of this particular conference, he had 

subsequently been convicted of further rioting offences resulting in his current 

sentence. Sometimes explaining his behaviour in individual terns (defining himself as 

a ‘hood’v), Kevin also described his feelings of boredom, the lack of things to do in 

his community and by contrast the excitement of rioting:  ‘you get like an adrenaline 

rush so you do…it’s good.’  Within the local context rioting has historically been a 

masculine form of cultural expression and resistance (Haydon et al, 2012). It can be 

seen, therefore, that despite restorative interventions the context and circumstances 

of Kevin’s life, continued to impact heavily on his offending behaviour. 

 

For some young people, their experiences of conferences were more stigmatizing 

than reintegrative. Aged 15, and serving a sentence for a violent offence Paul had 

experience of multiple conferences. He recounted his first conference where the 

victim was antagonistic towards him:  

 
 I had to show remorse for what I’d done like…like for the different offences, 
 like I was in a youth conference there ages ago for a burglary, it was one of 

 my first offences, and I just got diverted to a youth conference because it 

 wasn’t a serious burglary, you know. I had to sit in a room with the person 

 from the shop and I had to sit there and just to listen to him and say sorry 

 and all. He just sat there and gave me abuse basically, he was an English boy 

 and he called me a ‘yob’ or something like that. I hadn’t a clue what that 

 meant, I had to say – ‘what the fuck’s a yob like?’ And he says a ‘hood’ or 

 something like that it is. And I said – ‘I’m no hood’.  

 

Over time and following participation in further conferences, Paul describes ‘wising 

up’ and learning what is expected of him: 

 

 You know, that was me back in that time, and then going through youth justice 

 and all, I started wising up a bit, started getting street smart you know 

 instead of being stupid. Just all I had to do, all of the youth conferences, then 

 after that I would have just sat there and said ‘sorry’. You know, just listening 

 to them go on and on, (I) wouldn’t give a fuck. I would have sat there and said 

 ‘sorry’ instead of arguing with them, you know what I mean?   Paul (age 15) 



12 
 

 

Clearly Paul had learnt to adapt his initial strategy of resistance, challenging and 

talking back, to one where he says the ‘sorry’ that is required of him. The inclusive 

and participatory nature of conferences was greatly questionable in Paul’s 

experience. Garrett (age 17) described a similar feeling of saying what is required:  
 

 …you just have to sit down, and basically pretend, or not pretend, say you’re 

 sorry and look like you’re sorry and that’s it… 

  

Part of the difficulty here arises from the over-simplified binary categorisations of 

‘victim’ and ‘offender’, and for some the sense of injustice this arouses. Taking the 

moment, the interaction of the offence as the instance in which the young person 

(the ‘offender’) is held to account, and in which s/he must demonstrate remorse and 

accountability before the legitimate ‘victim’, belies the realities of many of the young 

people’s lives beyond these moments. For, Hugh (age 16), his life had been 

characterised by multiple losses and he described intense feelings of despair. Youth 

conferences where he had to account for behaviour that he could not fully recall 

because of alcohol use were particularly difficult: 

 

  …just like sitting there and listening, listening to like listening to everything 

 that I did and ‘cos it was all alcohol and it was all I felt so shit about it like, so 

 bad. And see like a few months down the line at that conference listening to it 

 again like just… you know when the alcohol was on board I didn’t care and 

 then a few months down the line I had the conference just hearing it all again 

 it was just killer like.   

 

Strategies of responsibilisation ‘holding young people to account’ are evident from 

the official youth justice discourse and in young people’s own recounting of their 

experiences. Internalising the message of the need to take responsibility and self-

manage Hugh feels the responsibility to change, particularly in light of a further 

admission to custody, as resting firmly on his shoulders. Despite recognising the 

harm done and feeling deep shame, Huge recognised this was not enough: 

 



13 
 

 I’d say if you asked … the conference worker well I wouldn’t really say it hit 

 home much with where I am sitting (in custody) at the moment. It’s  up to me 

 to change it like. 

 

While Morris (2002) cautions against a false binary between restorative and 

retributive justice or indeed pinning unrealistic expectations on restorative processes, 

here the challenges of restoration are apparent. While the focus of any conference is 

on the harm caused, the meaningfulness of restoration and reintegration particularly 

into families and communities from which young people feel alienated is raised in 

many of the young people’s accounts. Recognising the harms caused by offending 

was not something young people typically shied away from, however, they recounted 

the responsibility for restoration as resting primarily on them. The contents of 

Conference Plans, perhaps reflecting the offending history of some, were at times 

expansive and onerous. Some noted the ‘stress’ that managing multiple conditions 

could cause and a few noted not agreeing with the outcomes even though they had 

accepted them. While few discussed the programmes they had to undertake in any 

manner that would suggest a rehabilitative effect, their value for providing something 

to do in otherwise monotonous lives is noteworthy in its own right. It speaks to the 

lack of opportunities for young people living in communities often beleaguered by 

poverty, under-investment and the legacies of the Conflict.   

 
Experiences of custody 

 

Paradoxically, but perhaps unsurprisingly given their life experiences and ongoing 

issues within their communities, for many young people detention was described as 

a period of respite. Having their needs met and the relative ‘ease’ of the JJC in 

comparison to life outside was evident: 

 

Life is so easy in here. You have no worries about people looking for you, no 

worries about nothing. You have no worries about going hungry and getting 

food and things like that.      Robbie (aged 16) 

 

Reference was made to the range of activities available in the Centre and the fact 

that there was a structure and routine to daily life: 



14 
 

  

It’s a gift. I don’t know, don’t worry about nothing like. Whatever you need is 

there…the food’s rotten though. There’s all sorts of activities you can do in it 

like. They show you options and everything you can do when you get out and 

all.           Patrick (age 17) 

 

Anthony (aged 17) had been in and out of the JJC since the age of 11. He estimated 

that he had spent two years in detention between various remands and sentences. 

Using drugs for many years – ‘solvies and meth and coke, E’s everythin’ - for him the 

JJC offered an opportunity to detox: 

 

I like it in here, it’s good…Cos it’s kinda a detox centre, you just come in and 

 get off all the drugs and all and get fit again.   Anthony (age 17) 

 

Raising questions about the availability of appropriate services for young people in 

the community, like Anthony, Hugh had also experienced multiple admissions and 

the JJC was a place where he came off drugs. While ultimately he saw this as 

positive, this process was not without its pains: 

 

It makes me feel, it’s like I try, and this place is sort of like a place where 

people come off things. This is hard, you have to come off things in here …  it 

is not like you can turn round and say ‘give me something, give me cannabis, 

give me a smoke’. You can’t, you have to do it you have to come off them. 

And it is hard like… I have got these shakes sometimes I feel real not meself 

and but that’s why I do alternatives like go to the gym, do weights just take me 

mind of things really. Better than sitting smoking me brains out you know.   

  Hugh (age 16) 

 

The experience of many young people was that the JJC met their welfare needs, 

underlining the fact that these were not being met elsewhere. In a number of 

interviews young people also noted the materiality of their surroundings in detention. 

Some who had come here for the first time reported that it did not meet their 

expectations of what a prison or place of detention would be - they had their own 

rooms and access to resources that were not necessarily available to them on the 



15 
 

outside. This is not to suggest that young people did not want their freedom, and that 

there were not pains associated with confinement, but in many accounts the positive 

welfarist aspects of having their basic needs met, whilst at the same time desiring to 

be on the outside were noted. 

 

For some, like Hugh the desire to be free in the literal sense and also from drugs 

was double-edged, because he was not sure if he would have somewhere to go on 

release or if he could sustain abstinence on the outside. The anticipation of rejection 

by his family who did not want him to return home permeated his account and while 

he desired to be free, the thought of what would happen to him on release was a 

source of anxiety: 

 

I don’t have a problem with bein’ in here (custody) ‘cos, I don’t know, I guess 

you just get used to it after a few times. But then it’s just the fact that when 

you have bail you just have nowhere to live, it’s the worst thing that could 

possibly happen to ya.             Hugh (age 16) 

 

Contact with families and friends on the outside was both a source of comfort and 

anxiety for many young people. Some young people worried about their families 

making the journey to visit them, they described looking forward to a visit but feeling 

down afterwards as this accentuated their experience of being confined and away 

from home. Because the JJC is the only place for detained young people in Northern 

Ireland many families have to make long journeys to get there. While the JJC has an 

accommodation unit where families and visitors can stay overnight, young people 

were often conscious about the burden that their detention placed on their families. 

For Stevie, the impact of his mother visiting was known as he witnessed it first hand 

when his older brother was in prison: 

 

 …  when (brother was in prison) me ma went up and down but she used to be 

stressed, she says ‘this is costing me a fortune’. Diesel and then needin’ fifty 

pound a time for buyin’ clothes and all that. I knew it was a nightmare like, 

that’s why I said ‘I’ll see you once I get out’, but she came up the last time and 

left me money and all… 



16 
 

For young people then, experiences of custody were both punitive in terms of the 

deprivation of liberty and all that entailed, but also welfarist in that they perceived  

their needs were being met where they were not elsewhere.  

 
Discussion and conclusion 
 

Young people’s accounts of their experiences of these two justice interventions - 

youth conferencing and custody - provide an illustration of the range of rationalities 

at play within the youth justice system. The mix of responsibilisation, restoration, 

welfarism and punitiveness is evident. The impulse towards responsibilisation of 

‘holding young people to account’ for the harms they have caused is clear in some of 

the experiences of restorative justice, where young people are required to hear the 

views of the victims of their offences and to make amends. Depending on the 

particular circumstances and dynamics of the process, these encounters can be 

experienced as shameful or punitive. They can also become devoid of meaning, a 

performance of reform where young people understand the rules and what is 

required of them - they ‘wise up’ and they give the requisite apology. In other 

instances experiences of shaming are characterised more re-integratively. A clear 

pre-requisite here is that the young person feels that they are treated with respect 

and that they are not stigmatised within this process.  

  

The aim of restoration as young people experience it, largely places the burden of 

restoration and reform on their shoulders. The question of their wider experiences, 

including multiple traumatic life events, poverty, paramilitary punishments and other 

forms of exclusions are for many not addressed in a meaningful way. This is not to 

say that attempts are not made to do this, young people are provided with the 

opportunity to give their account, but for many this accounting in this setting is too 

difficult and to what effect? While the formulations of conference plans variously 

include letters of apology, engagement in voluntary work, attendance at anger 

management and drug and alcohol programmes and so forth, these too are largely 

premised on indivualised reform and responsibility.  

 

That incarnations of restorative justice do not achieve the desired effects for these 

and other young people is not a reason to rubbish its intentions (Morris, 2002). The 



17 
 

point is to illuminate the fact that discourses are given multiple effects in practice. 

Here restoration as perceived is about responsibiisation and for some it is punitive. 

Similarly the data on young people’s experiences of custody, an intervention most 

associated with punitiveness, points to contradictory strains and ‘oscillating 

rationales’ (Muncie, 2006: 771) in the youth justice sphere. The accounts of young 

people highlight that for some detention was the means to meet their welfare needs 

and this was preferable to them than circumstances where their freedom in the 

community was restrictively curtailed, for example through the imposition of multiple 

bail conditions. Thus, a contingent community existence was viewed more punitively 

than custody.  

 

The argument is not of course that custody should not espouse welfarist rationales, 

but rather that this was the place where welfare needs (substance misuse and 

mental health difficulties, homelessness, etc.) had to be met. This is the larger 

indictment. While the numbers of young people in custody over time has declined, 

the impulse for its use, grounded in such rationales – preventative, public protection 

and welfarist - remains. It is the multiplicity and adaptability of these various 

rationales that continue to give custody and other youth justice interventions their 

(re)productive and felt effect. 

 

References 
 

Ahmed E and Braithwaite  J (2005) Forgiveness, shaming, shame and bullying. 

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 38(3): 298–323. 

 

Atkinson R (1998) The Life Story Interview. London: Sage. 

 

Bateman T (2012) Who pulled the plug? Towards an explanation for the fall in child 

imprisonment in England and Wales. Youth Justice 12(1): 36-52. 

 

Braithwaite J (1989) Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press. 

 



18 
 

Brown S (2005) Understanding Youth and Crime: Listening to Youth? Berkshire: 

Open University Press. 

 

Case S (2006) Young People “At Risk” of What? Challenging Risk-focused Early 

Intervention as Crime Prevention. Youth Justice 6(3): 171-179 

 

Cohen S (1985) Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

 

Cole AL and Knowles GJ (2001) Lives in context: The Art of Life History Research. 

Lanham: AltaMira Press. 

 

Convery U, Haydon D, Moore L and Scraton P (2008) Children, Rights and Justice in 

Northern Ireland: Community and Custody. Youth Justice 8(3): 245-263. 

 

Convery U (2013) Locked in the past: An historical analysis of the legal framework of 

custody for children in Northern Ireland. European Journal of Criminology 11(2): 251-

269. 

 

Crawford A and Newburn T (2003) Recent Developments in Restorative Justice for 

Young People in England and Wales: Community Participation and Representation. 

British Journal of Criminology 42(3): 476-495. 

 

Daly K (2002) Restorative Justice the real story. Punishment and Society 4(1): 55-

79. 

 

DeCodts M and O’Neill N (2014) Youth Justice Agency Annual Workload Statistics 

2012/13 Statistical Bulletin 1/2014. Belfast: DoJ (Department of Justice). 

 

Doak J and O’Mahony D (2012) In search of legitimacy: restorative youth 

conferencing in Northern Ireland. Legal Studies 31(2): 305-325. 

 

Eliaerts C and Dumortier E (2002) ‘Restorative justice for children: in need of 

procedural safeguards and standards.’ In: Weitekamp EGM and Kerner HJ (eds.) 

Restorative Justice Theoretical Foundations. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 204-223. 



19 
 

 

Fergusson R (2007) Making sense of the melting pot: Multiple discourses in Youth 

Justice Policy. Youth Justice 7(3): 179-194. 

 

Gray P (2005) The politics of risk and young offenders’ experiences of social 

exclusion and restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 45(6): 938-957. 

 

Haydon, D., McAlister, S., Scraton, P. (2012) ‘Young People, Conflict and 

Regulation.’ Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 51,5: 503-520 

 

Harris N (2006) Reintegrative Shaming, Shame, and Criminal Justice. Journal of 

Social Issues 62(2): 327-346. 

 

Hudson B (2003) Understanding Justice: An Introduction to Ideas, Perspectives and 

Controversies in Modern Penal Theory. Buckingham: Open University Press. 

 

Jacobson J and Gibbs P (2009) Making Amends: Restorative Justice in Northern 

Ireland. London: Prison Reform Trust. 

 

McAra L (2006) Welfare in crisis? Key developments in Scottish Youth Justice. In: 

Muncie J and Goldson B (eds.) Comparative Youth Justice. London: Sage, pp. 127-

145. 

 

McVie S (2011) Alterative models of youth justice: lessons from Scotland and 

Northern Ireland. Journal of Children’s Services 6(2): 106-114. 

 

Maruna S, Wright S, Brown J, Van Marle F, Devlin R and Liddle M (2007) Youth 

Conferencing as Shame Management: Results of a Long-Term Follow-up Study. 

ARCS UK: Available at: 

http://youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/document_uploads/SHAD_MARUNA_STUDY.pdf 

 

Morris A (2002) Critiquing the critics: A brief response to critics of restorative justice. 

British Journal of Criminology 42(3): 596-615  

 



20 
 

Muncie J (2004) Youth and Crime, London: Sage. 

 

Muncie J (2005) The globalization of crime control – the case of youth and juvenile 

justice: Neo-liberalism, policy convergences and international conventions. 

Theoretical Criminology 9(1): 35-64.  

 

Muncie J (2006) Governing young people: Coherence and contradiction in 

contemporary youth justice. Critical Social Policy 26(4): 770–793. 

 

Muncie J (2008) The ‘punitive turn’ in juvenile justice: Cultures of control and rights 

compliance in Western Europe and the USA. Youth Justice 8(2): 107-121. 

 

Muncie J (2011) Illusions of difference: Comparative youth justice in the devolved 

United Kingdom. British Journal of Criminology 51(1): 40-27. 

 

Muncie J and Goldson B (2006) States of transition: Convergence and diversity in 

international youth justice. In: Muncie J and Goldson B (eds.) Comparative Youth 

Justice. London: Sage, pp. 196-218. 

 

Newbury A (2008) Youth crime: Whose responsibility? Journal of Law and Society 

35(1): 131-149. 

 

O’Mahony D and Campbell C (2006) Mainstreaming Restorative Justice for Young 

Offenders through Youth Conferencing: The Experience of Northern Ireland. In: 

Junger-Tas J and Decker SH (eds.) International Handbook of Juvenile Justice, pp. 

93-115. 

 

Phoenix J and Kelly L (2013) “You have to do it yourself”: Responsibilzation in youth 

justice and young people’s situated knowledge of youth justice practice. British 

Journal of Criminology 53(3): 419-437. 

 

Youth Justice Review Team (2011) A Review of the Youth Justice System in 

Northern Ireland. Belfast: DoJ 

 



21 
 

Author biographies: Siobhán McAlister and Nicola Carr are lecturers in Criminology in 
Queen’s University Belfast 

i The following offences are precluded from being dealt with by way of a youth justice conference under the 
Justice Act, 2002 [33A, 2](a) offences the sentence for which is, in the case of an adult, fixed by law as 
imprisonment for life; (b) offences which are, in the case of an adult, triable only on indictment; and(c) 
offences which are scheduled offences for the purposes of Part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11). 
ii In line with recommendations for The Youth Justice Review (2011), in late 2012 the Department of Justice 
announced the end of detention of under 18’s within the prison system, except in specific cases (e.g. where 
there were serious security risks such as the involvement of a young person in dissident activity). 
iii Young people who are currently looked after are not included in the sample as this requires a separate 
research governance and ethical approval process.  
iv Youth Justice Agency leaflet for young people: Youth Conference: Your Decision. Available at: 
http://www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/document_uploads//Youth_conference_Your_Decision.pdf  
v ‘Hood’ is a localism for those who take part in criminal activities, particularly rioting with the police, for ‘fun’. 

                                                           

http://www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/document_uploads/Youth_conference_Your_Decision.pdf