Mater Dolorosa: Negotiating Support in NSW Youth Justice Conferencing

Article

Abstract

At the heart of Youth Justice Conferencing, a form of restorative justice aimed at addressing youth crime, is the notion that young persons who have committed an offence should be ‘reintegrated’ into their communities (Braithwaite in Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989). This paper focuses on the role of parents as support persons, in particular the ‘crying mum’, an identity often leveraged by the Convenor when prompting the young person to express remorse to the circle. We explore an Avouchment genre that we have observed whereby support persons vouch for the character of the young person. Our analysis considers the ways in which values are composed (as ideational categories are coupled with evaluative interpersonal ones) and unfold in discourse as invitations for participants to align. In Knight’s (2010) terms, when shared, couplings of ideation and evaluation engender bonds through which participants may commune.

Keywords

Youth Justice Conferencing Support persons Systemic functional linguistics Discourse analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Bradt, Lieve, Nicole Vettenburg, and Rudi Roose. 2007. Relevant others in restorative practices for minors: For what purposes? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 40(3): 291–312. doi: 10.1375/acri.40.3.291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braithwaite, J. 1989. Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braithwaite, J. 1997. Restorative justice and a better future. The Dalhousie Review 76: 9–31.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braithwaite, J., and K. Daly. 1994. Masculinities and communitarian control. In Just boys doing business? Men, masculinities and crime, ed. T. Newburn, and E. Stanko, 189–213. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hayes, H., and K. Daly. 2003. Youth justice conferencing and re-offending. Justice Quarterly 20(4): 725–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hood, S. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoyle, C., and S. Noguera. 2008. Supporting young offenders through restorative justice: Parents as (in)appropriate adults. British Journal of Community Justice 6: 67–85.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knight, N. 2010. Wrinkling complexity: Concepts of identity and affiliation in humour. In New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity and affiliationm, ed. M. Bednarek and J. R. Martin, 35–58. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, J.R. 1997. Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Genres and institutions: Social processes in the work-place and school, ed. F. Christie, and J.R. Martin. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, J.R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin, J.R. 2001. Cohesion and texture. In Handbook of discourse analysis, ed. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton, 35–53. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin, J.R., Zappavigna, M. and P. Dwyer. 2013. Users in uses of language: Embodied identity in youth justice conferencing. Text & Talk. 33: 467–496.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin, J.R. 2009. Discourse studies. In A companion for systemic functional linguistics, ed. J. Webster, 154–165. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin, J.R. 2008. Tenderness: Realization and instantiation in a Botswanan town. In Systemic functional linguistics in use, ed. N. Norgaard, Vol. 29, 31–62. Odense: Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin, J.R., Zappavigna, M., and P. Dwyer. 2009a. Negotiating shame: Exchange and genre structure in youth justice conferencing. In Studies in applied linguistics and language learning, ed. A. Mahboob and C. Lipovsky, 41–72. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin, J.R., Zappavigna, M., and P. Dwyer. 2009b. Negotiating narrative: Story structure and identity in youth justice conferencing. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 3(2): 221–253.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin, J.R., and D. Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London; New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin, J.R., and P.R.R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin, J.R. 2011. Systemic functional linguistics. In Continuum companion to discourse analysis, ed. K. Hyland, and B. Paltridge, 101–119. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maton, K. 2013. Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maxwell, Gabrielle, and Allison Morris. 2001. Family group conferences and reoffending. In Restorative justice for juveniles: Conferencing, mediation and circles, ed. Allison Morris, and Gabrielle Maxwell, 243–266. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prichard, Jeremy. 2002. Parent–child dynamics in community conferences—Some questions for reintegrative shaming, practice and restorative justice. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 35(3): 330–346. doi: 10.1375/acri.35.3.330.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strang, H., and J. Braithwaite. 2001. Restorative justice and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trimboli, L. 2000. An evaluation of the NSW Youth Justice Conferencing scheme. Legislative evaluation series Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weitekamp, E. 1999. The history of restorative justice. In Restorative juvenile justice: Repairing the harm of youth crime, ed. G. Bazemore, and L. Walgrave. NJ: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zappavigna, M., C. Cléirigh, P. Dwyer, and J.R. Martin. 2009. The coupling of gesture and phonology. In New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, ed. M. Bednarek, and J.R. Martin, 237–266. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zehr, H. 1990. Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhao, S. 2010. Intersemiotic relations as logogenetic patterns: Towards the restoration of the time dimension in hypertext description. In New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, ed. M. Bednarek and J.R. Martin, 195–218. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts and the Media, Robert Webster BuildingUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics, Transient Building F12University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations