skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 99415 Find in a Library
Title: Reparation and Justice for Juveniles - The Corby Experience
Journal: British Journal of Criminology  Volume:25  Issue:7  Dated:(July 1985)  Pages:267-279
Author(s): H Blagg
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 13
Type: Program/Project Evaluation
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
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.
Index Term(s): England; Juvenile diversion programs; Juvenile restitution; Program evaluation
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=99415

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.