Judicial censure and moral communication to youth sex offenders

File Size Format
52472_1.pdf 162Kb Adobe PDF View
Title Judicial censure and moral communication to youth sex offenders
Author Daly, Kathleen; Bouhours, Brigitte
Journal Name Justice Quarterly
Year Published 2008
Place of publication United States
Publisher Routledge
Abstract The philosophical underpinnings of youth courts rest on the notion that youths are less culpable and more reformable than adults. Some scholars argue that, ideally, when sentencing youth crime, judges should engage youthful offenders in moral communication to elicit change. But do they? What more generally do judges say to the youths? This paper analyzes the frequency and content of judicial censure and moral communication in the sentencing of youth sex offenders. Drawing on the sentencing remarks for 55 sexual violence cases, we examine the ways in which judges interact with youths and censure the offenses, and what, if any, normative guidance they give concerning gender, sexuality, and violence. We found that in most but not all cases, the judges censured the offending as both a moral and legal wrong. However, they spent more time discussing a youth's future than past behavior, as they sought to elicit change. The judges did not degrade or exclude the offenders; rather, they addressed them in a spirit of reintegration, as worthy individuals with future potential. Although the judges set norms of appropriate sexual behavior to the youths when the offense victims were children, they did not always do so when victims were female peers. In this Youth Court, “real rape” was sexual offending by a youth against a child under 12 years of age. By contrast, in about one-fifth of cases, all of which occurred against a female peer, the offending was censured only as a legal wrong (a “pseudo censure”) and less likely subject to judicial norm setting.
Peer Reviewed Yes
Published Yes
Alternative URI http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418820701834584
Copyright Statement Copyright 2008 Taylor & Francis. This is the author-manuscript version of the paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal link for access to the definitive, published version
Volume 25
Issue Number 3
Page from 496
Page to 522
ISSN 0741-8825
Date Accessioned 2009-01-14
Language en_AU
Research Centre Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance
Faculty Faculty of Arts
Subject PRE2009-Criminology
URI http://hdl.handle.net/10072/23001
Publication Type Journal Articles (Refereed Article)
Publication Type Code c1

Show simple item record

Griffith University copyright notice