Victim-offender mediation in Taiwan and mainland China: Current practices and challenges

D. Wong

Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University Of Hong Kong

Restorative justice, an imported western idea of crime prevention and control, has been flourished in both Taiwan and the mainland China (China) over the past twenty years. New laws and regulations are established to make restorative justice work. Interestingly, the distinction between restorative justice and mediation in both Taiwan and China is not very clear. The Chinese translated term of restorative justice is not as well-known as the term tiaojie (mediation) in the Chinese communities. China is one of the historic cradles of mediation and tiaojie is generally conceived as a high order terminology which covers all kinds of mediation practices including family, community, judicial, and criminal mediation.

Debates on whether restorative justice should be adopted, and how it could be fitted into the criminal justice system or Chinese traditional cultures, have become frequent among different camps of academia and criminal justice professionals. This paper focuses only on a specific kind of mediation i.e. victim-offender mediation in Taiwan and China. It highlights the current practices, its operation, and its connection to Chinese traditional culture. The paper also discusses challenges facing the development of restorative justice in the Greater China region.

Biography

Dennis Wong is currently a Professor of Social Work and Criminology at the Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong. He also serves as associate dean at the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. His research interests include juvenile delinquency, school bullying and cyber-bullying, offender rehabilitation and restorative justice.

Victim-offender mediation in Taiwan and mainland China: Current practices and challenges

D. Wong

Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University Of Hong Kong

Restorative justice, an imported western idea of crime prevention and control, has been flourished in both Taiwan and the mainland China (China) over the past twenty years. New laws and regulations are established to make restorative justice work. Interestingly, the distinction between restorative justice and mediation in both Taiwan and China is not very clear. The Chinese translated term of restorative justice is not as well-known as the term tiaojie (mediation) in the Chinese communities. China is one of the historic cradles of mediation and tiaojie is generally conceived as a high order terminology which covers all kinds of mediation practices including family, community, judicial, and criminal mediation.

Debates on whether restorative justice should be adopted, and how it could be fitted into the criminal justice system or Chinese traditional cultures, have become frequent among different camps of academia and criminal justice professionals. This paper focuses only on a specific kind of mediation i.e. victim-offender mediation in Taiwan and China. It highlights the current practices, its operation, and its connection to Chinese traditional culture. The paper also discusses challenges facing the development of restorative justice in the Greater China region.

Biography

Dennis Wong is currently a Professor of Social Work and Criminology at the Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong. He also serves as associate dean at the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. His research interests include juvenile delinquency, school bullying and cyber-bullying, offender rehabilitation and restorative justice.

Youth Justice Conferencing for youth misuse of fire: The influence of firefighters on conference process, outcomes, and impact

K. Pooley

Queensland University of Technology

Youth misuse of fire is a multifaceted, complex, and covert behaviour which has attracted the attention of the international community. Yet, there exists only a small body of literature analysing the phenomenon from a criminological perspective, and an absence of discourse pertaining to its tertiary prevention. In Australia, tertiary prevention of youth misuse of fire is facilitated through interagency agreements between Juvenile Justice and Fire and Rescue services. These agreements provide the framework for firefighter participation in diversionary conferencing convened for young people who have committed fire-related offences. Despite being in operation for a decade, this approach is yet to be theoretically framed or empirically evaluated.
To partially fill this void, a research-oriented evaluation has been conducted on Youth Justice Conferencing for youth misuse of fire in New South Wales. This evaluation has been designed to: examine the theoretical basis of diversionary conferencing for youth misuse of fire; examine differences in outcome plan content and recidivism rates between conferences convened with and without firefighter involvement; analyse apology letter content to explore the fire-specific messages cognisized by young people; and explore program practitioners’ perceptions of firefighter involvement and the influence this involvement may have on diversionary conference process, outcomes and impact. Findings will determine whether, and if so how, firefighter involvement influences the process, outcomes, and impact of diversionary conferencing, and thus whether diversionary conferencing with firefighter involvement facilitates youth misuse of fire prevention.

Biography

Kamarah Pooley is a PhD Candidate with Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Law. Kamarah attained her Bachelor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, and Honours in Criminology, whilst working as a career firefighter with Fire and Rescue New South Wales. Her research experience and interest centers around youth misuse of fire, its prevention, and its analysis from a criminological perspective.

Youth Justice Conferencing for youth misuse of fire: The influence of firefighters on conference process, outcomes, and impact

K. Pooley

Queensland University of Technology

Youth misuse of fire is a multifaceted, complex, and covert behaviour which has attracted the attention of the international community. Yet, there exists only a small body of literature analysing the phenomenon from a criminological perspective, and an absence of discourse pertaining to its tertiary prevention. In Australia, tertiary prevention of youth misuse of fire is facilitated through interagency agreements between Juvenile Justice and Fire and Rescue services. These agreements provide the framework for firefighter participation in diversionary conferencing convened for young people who have committed fire-related offences. Despite being in operation for a decade, this approach is yet to be theoretically framed or empirically evaluated.
To partially fill this void, a research-oriented evaluation has been conducted on Youth Justice Conferencing for youth misuse of fire in New South Wales. This evaluation has been designed to: examine the theoretical basis of diversionary conferencing for youth misuse of fire; examine differences in outcome plan content and recidivism rates between conferences convened with and without firefighter involvement; analyse apology letter content to explore the fire-specific messages cognisized by young people; and explore program practitioners’ perceptions of firefighter involvement and the influence this involvement may have on diversionary conference process, outcomes and impact. Findings will determine whether, and if so how, firefighter involvement influences the process, outcomes, and impact of diversionary conferencing, and thus whether diversionary conferencing with firefighter involvement facilitates youth misuse of fire prevention.

Biography

Kamarah Pooley is a PhD Candidate with Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Law. Kamarah attained her Bachelor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, and Honours in Criminology, whilst working as a career firefighter with Fire and Rescue New South Wales. Her research experience and interest centers around youth misuse of fire, its prevention, and its analysis from a criminological perspective.

Language competence and restorative justice conference processes

Hennessey Hayes

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, h.hayes@griffith.edu.au

Restorative justice (RJ) processes require young offenders to effectively engage in a conversation about their wrongdoing and ways of repairing harms they have caused.  As such, the RJ process draws heavily on the oral language abilities (everyday talking and listening skills) of the young offender, who needs to listen to complex and emotionally charged accounts of the victim’s perspective on the offence, and formulate their own experiences and perspectives into a coherent narrative that is judged as adequate and authentic by the parties affected by the wrong-doing.  Prior research on the language skills of young people in the youth justice system shows that approximately 50% of young offenders have a clinically significant language deficit.  This paper draws on observational and interview data from a number of young offenders who attended a restorative justice conference to explore the extent to which languages deficits may prevail among young offenders in restorative justice processes.

Biography

Dr Hennessey Hayes has been researching and writing in the areas of restorative justice, youthful offending and recidivism for more than a decade. His current work includes a major qualitative study of young offenders in youth justice conferences with a focus on what young people understand about restorative justice processes and how such knowledge relates to future behaviour.  Other work includes assessing the ways that language skills of young offenders in restorative justice conferences relates to conference outcomes.

Responding to sexual violence in Fiji: Colonial law and customary justice

J. Whitehead

Monash University, john.whitehead@monash.edu

Sexual violence and responses to such offences are a global concern. Within Fiji, where the rate of sexual violence is above the global average, the traditional criminal justice responses to these offences are historically based upon colonial law. It included victimising requirements, such as the corroboration of a survivor’s testimony. The traditional criminal justice system has also replaced customary forms of dispute resolution that are a fundamental aspect of Fijian society. As such, the individualistic focus of the colonial and western criminal justice system is not an appropriate response to sexual violence offences in Fiji. Instead, customary mediation ceremonies, such as bulubulu, provide the victim with the collective support of a community. This Indigenous form of restorative justice also provides a symbolic apology that is contextualised to Fiji and the iTaukei people. However, international and local institutions have raised concerns over the use of bulubulu in cases of sexual violence. This is primarily due to the patriarchal construction and performance of the ceremony. By engaging with victim advocates, legal practitioners, and inmates currently undergoing rehabilitation, this study aimed to better understand what constitutes an appropriate response to offences along the sexual violence spectrum. The findings suggest that a restorative method to address many of these offences is both appropriate and possible, and can be designed by local stakeholders to provide a holistic response to sexual violence within Fiji.

Biography

John Whitehead is a PhD candidate at Monash University, currently completing his thesis on Indigenous Fijian forms of restorative justice. He has published on Child Sexual Abuse and restorative responses, and currently has a chapter under publication on the use of restorative responses for sexual violence offences.

Findings from two Restorative Justice intervention sessions with men convicted of sexual offenses

A.R. Ackerman, J.S. Levenson

1 University of Washington, Tacoma – Tacoma, Washington, USA
2 Barry University – Miami, Florida, USA

*corresponding author: ackerma1@uw.edu

Western criminal justice philosophy has long focused on punishing offenders for wrongdoing. Many individuals, including victims, perpetrators and the communities that surround them, often acknowledge that criminal justice systems do not meet their needs (Zehr, 2015). Scholars and practitioners have noted that typical criminal justice (CJ)  responses to crime do not reduce harm and that restorative justice frameworks used either in conjunction with or in lieu of CJ may aid in harm reduction for everyone involved. This is particularly noteworthy regarding sex crimes. In recent years there has been a call to offer restorative justice practices for survivors of sexual violence in lieu of or in conjunction with CJ sanctions. There is considerable debate regarding the use of restorative justice for sexually based offenses, primarily because there is a dearth of empirical research on the topic. While some argue that restorative justice can trivialize sexual violence against women and may put them in more danger (Cameron, 2006), others suggest that such practices give survivors a voice, control, and validation (McGlynn, Westmarland, & Godden, 2012). Contemporary CJ practice focuses almost exclusively on the offender and the limited available research to date on restorative justice practice and sexual violence tends to focus on how survivors experience the process. We will present initial findings from two focus groups involving group therapy sessions for clients in a treatment program for sexual offending, one treatment provider and one rape survivor.  This was originally conceived of as restorative justice intervention sessions intended to improve victim empathy in the offenders, but ended up being healing in unexpected ways for the survivor as well.

Biography

Alissa R. Ackerman is Associate Professor in the Social Work and Criminal Justice Program at the University of Washington, Tacoma. She received her doctorate in Criminal Justice from City University of New York/ John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2009. Her work on sex offender policy and practice appears in Criminal Justice and Behavior, Justice Quarterly, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Journal of Criminal Justice, Crime and Delinquency, and The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. She co-edited Sex Crimes: Transnational Problems and Global Perspectives (Columbia University Press). Her research interests include: sexual violence and sex offender management.

The people’s tribunal

Alan Collins

alan.collins@hughjames.com

The People’s Tribunal was/is a grassroots entity established in the UK by child abuse survivors and their supporters to create their own inquiry into institutional child abuse.

The independent inquiry, led by a panel of four judges, listened to evidence spanning four decades from survivors and experts. A common theme throughout these accounts showed that a series of institutional failures prevented abuse from being reported; and that there are clear links between children being rendered vulnerable by these failures and predatory abuse on an organised scale

It made a series of recommendations including the establishment of a permanent and open forum for victims to share experiences and give evidence, better links between mental health services and police investigations, and training for police and judiciary professionals on the effects of undisclosed sexual abuse.

The purpose of the presentation will be to explain:

  • How communities can create their own justice/redress mechanisms
  • The benefits of such mechanisms
  • The risks and difficulties
  • Misplaced assumptions viz survivors their aims, what justice might look like, redress
  • Lessons that the People’s Tribunal can teach us.

Australian violence

J.Stubbs1*,  D. Chappell, 3 R Homel, 4 K. Carrington,4  R. Hogg,5  J Bargen 6

1 Faculty of Law UNSW
2 Facutly of Law, University of Sydney
3 Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University
4 School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology
5 Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
6 Independent researcher

*corresponding author: j.stubbs@unsw.edu.au

 

Australian violence: Then and now

Julie Stubbs 1 and Stephen Tomsen 2

1 Faculty of Law, UNSW
2 School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University

This paper provides a foundation for the panel by asking the question what is distinctive about Australian violence? Drawing on the new book Australian Violence: Crime, Criminal Justice and Beyond, the paper examines fluidity in shifting conceptions of violence.  It reflects on changes over time in approaches to violence, Australian contributions to international scholarly debates and innovative practices in response to violence. It also notes the leadership of Australian scholars to post-colonial criminology and the newly emerging Southern Criminology, and the new insights this has brought to the analysis of violence.

Shooting, spanking, punching and other matters: Reflections on the work and impact of the National Committee on violence

Duncan Chappell, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, duncan.chappell@sydney.edu.au

On August 9 1987 a gunman, armed with three firearms including a military style M 14 rifle, opened fire on citizens and traffic on Hoddle Street, in busy inner city Melbourne. The gunman, who killed seven people and injured a further 19 was apprehended at the scene and taken into police custody. Just a few months later, on December 8 1987, another gunman armed with a sawn-off M1 military style weapon stormed into an office building in Queen St in the central business district of Melbourne. Firing indiscriminately at office workers the gunman’s rampage resulted in the deaths of eight people and the injury of another five. The gunman evaded capture by jumping to his death from an office window.

These two incidents, subsequently labelled the Hoddle and Queen Street massacres, were among the worst mass killings to have occurred in recent Australian history. The incidents provoked widespread citizen and governmental alarm about the immediate safety of the public as well as the general state of violence in Australian society. Shortly after the massacres the then Prime Minister, Robert Hawke, convened a meeting of the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to discuss gun control. From this meeting emerged an agreement among all of the governments to establish a National Committee on Violence (NCV).

The presenter, then the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), was appointed Chair of the NCV which reported its findings and recommendations in 1990 (Violence. Directions for Australia). In this paper he reflects on the work and subsequent impact of the NCV with particular reference to gun control, spanking of children and boxing.

Social disadvantage, community mobilisation, and the prevention of violence: A longitudinal community study

Homel1*, R. Wickes2 & R. Zahnow2

1 Griffith Criminology Institute
2 School of Social Science, University of Queensland

*r.homel@griffith.edu.au

Introduction

Cross-sectional studies demonstrate the strong relationship between disadvantage, social cohesion and violence. Less well understood is how community structure and processes influence violence over time.

Methods

Social disorganisation theorists contend that crime concentrates in disorganised areas because community structural characteristics (poverty, racial/ethnic concentration, residential instability) break down regulatory processes. The Australian Community Capacity Study is one of just four studies to examine neighbourhood processes and crime and disorder prospectively over time. We use three waves of the ACCS (2006-2011) across 148 Brisbane suburbs, plus census and police data, to examine the temporal relationship between socio-structural characteristics, community cohesion, and violence.

Results

Overall rates of violence within suburbs did not change, but there was variability between suburbs in violence at any given time, and also variation between suburbs in within suburb changes in violence. Modelling showed that suburbs that increased in social cohesion experienced lower violence over time. Changes in residential mobility, population density, and language diversity did not predict higher violence, but increases in disadvantage were associated with higher violence.

Conclusions

Over a 6-year period across 148 Brisbane suburbs, only reductions in aggregate levels of cohesion and trust and increases in disadvantage were associated with increased rates of police-recorded violence. Aligning social disorganisation research with prevention science using community coalitions of residents and service providers as a prevention delivery system can help identify both the mechanisms that allow for the development of social cohesion and the ways in which social cohesion manifests in activities that lead to lower violence.

Violence in rural Australia

Kerry Carrington 1* , Russell Hogg 2

1 School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
2 Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology.

Traditions of scholarship in the social sciences have tended to perpetuate the myth that rural communities are relatively violence free by romanticising them as places of ‘unquestionable moral virtue’ (Lockie, 2000: 21). Similarly within criminology, most scholarly research about crime and violence has privileged urban settlement as the ideal laboratory of criminological research, neglecting the study of violence in rural contexts. It should not be surprising then that violence in rural societies has attracted little scholarly attention until recently. This neglect is linked to the idea that violence is antithetical to an imagined but idealist conception of what is rural.  This paper, base on our chapter to the collection on Violence in Australia, challenges the myth perpetuated by modernisation thesis – that rural communities are relatively free of crime and violence.

Restorative justice as an innovative response to violence

Jenny Bargen,1 Janet Chan 2 and Jane Bolitho 3

1 Independent researcher
2 Faculty of Law, UNSW
3 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW

There are many good reasons for criminal justice researchers and policymakers to be sceptical about initiatives that are labelled as ‘innovative’. ‘Innovative’ is a term often used for marketing to create a sense of novelty and superiority that may or may not be present in the product. That the tag ‘innovative’ helps sell not only consumer goods but also public policy is symptomatic of a commercial culture that has become ubiquitous in contemporary social life. Yet, as we will argue in this paper, ‘innovative’ can have a tangible meaning in criminal justice. We focus on one of the less well known and rarely promoted ‘innovative justice’ responses -the post-sentence Victim Offender Conference (VOC) run by the Restorative Justice Unit of Corrective Services NSW—and discuss why this form of restorative justice (RJ) practice has the capacity to be a truly innovative response to criminal violence in Australia.

 

Biography

Julie Stubbs is a criminologist whose research is largely focused on gender and criminal justice. Duncan Chappell is a lawyer, criminologist and previously Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology. Ross Homel ‘s passion is crime and violence prevention, for which he has won many awards.Kerry Carrington is an international leader in southern criminology, youth justice, rural crime, gender and violence.Russell Hogg is a leading scholar in theoretical criminology, punishment and society, the politics of law and order, and crime and justice in rural communities. Jenny Bargen is a research consultant and previously Director,  Youth Conferencing in NSW.

Australian violence

J.Stubbs1*,  D. Chappell, 3 R Homel, 4 K. Carrington,4  R. Hogg,5  J Bargen 6

1 Faculty of Law UNSW
2 Facutly of Law, University of Sydney
3 Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University
4 School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology
5 Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
6 Independent researcher

*corresponding author: j.stubbs@unsw.edu.au

 

Australian violence: Then and now

Julie Stubbs 1 and Stephen Tomsen 2

1 Faculty of Law, UNSW
2 School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University

This paper provides a foundation for the panel by asking the question what is distinctive about Australian violence? Drawing on the new book Australian Violence: Crime, Criminal Justice and Beyond, the paper examines fluidity in shifting conceptions of violence.  It reflects on changes over time in approaches to violence, Australian contributions to international scholarly debates and innovative practices in response to violence. It also notes the leadership of Australian scholars to post-colonial criminology and the newly emerging Southern Criminology, and the new insights this has brought to the analysis of violence.

Shooting, spanking, punching and other matters: Reflections on the work and impact of the National Committee on violence

Duncan Chappell, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, duncan.chappell@sydney.edu.au

On August 9 1987 a gunman, armed with three firearms including a military style M 14 rifle, opened fire on citizens and traffic on Hoddle Street, in busy inner city Melbourne. The gunman, who killed seven people and injured a further 19 was apprehended at the scene and taken into police custody. Just a few months later, on December 8 1987, another gunman armed with a sawn-off M1 military style weapon stormed into an office building in Queen St in the central business district of Melbourne. Firing indiscriminately at office workers the gunman’s rampage resulted in the deaths of eight people and the injury of another five. The gunman evaded capture by jumping to his death from an office window.

These two incidents, subsequently labelled the Hoddle and Queen Street massacres, were among the worst mass killings to have occurred in recent Australian history. The incidents provoked widespread citizen and governmental alarm about the immediate safety of the public as well as the general state of violence in Australian society. Shortly after the massacres the then Prime Minister, Robert Hawke, convened a meeting of the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to discuss gun control. From this meeting emerged an agreement among all of the governments to establish a National Committee on Violence (NCV).

The presenter, then the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), was appointed Chair of the NCV which reported its findings and recommendations in 1990 (Violence. Directions for Australia). In this paper he reflects on the work and subsequent impact of the NCV with particular reference to gun control, spanking of children and boxing.

Social disadvantage, community mobilisation, and the prevention of violence: A longitudinal community study

Homel1*, R. Wickes2 & R. Zahnow2

1 Griffith Criminology Institute
2 School of Social Science, University of Queensland

*r.homel@griffith.edu.au

Introduction

Cross-sectional studies demonstrate the strong relationship between disadvantage, social cohesion and violence. Less well understood is how community structure and processes influence violence over time.

Methods

Social disorganisation theorists contend that crime concentrates in disorganised areas because community structural characteristics (poverty, racial/ethnic concentration, residential instability) break down regulatory processes. The Australian Community Capacity Study is one of just four studies to examine neighbourhood processes and crime and disorder prospectively over time. We use three waves of the ACCS (2006-2011) across 148 Brisbane suburbs, plus census and police data, to examine the temporal relationship between socio-structural characteristics, community cohesion, and violence.

Results

Overall rates of violence within suburbs did not change, but there was variability between suburbs in violence at any given time, and also variation between suburbs in within suburb changes in violence. Modelling showed that suburbs that increased in social cohesion experienced lower violence over time. Changes in residential mobility, population density, and language diversity did not predict higher violence, but increases in disadvantage were associated with higher violence.

Conclusions

Over a 6-year period across 148 Brisbane suburbs, only reductions in aggregate levels of cohesion and trust and increases in disadvantage were associated with increased rates of police-recorded violence. Aligning social disorganisation research with prevention science using community coalitions of residents and service providers as a prevention delivery system can help identify both the mechanisms that allow for the development of social cohesion and the ways in which social cohesion manifests in activities that lead to lower violence.

Violence in rural Australia

Kerry Carrington 1* , Russell Hogg 2

1 School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
2 Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology.

Traditions of scholarship in the social sciences have tended to perpetuate the myth that rural communities are relatively violence free by romanticising them as places of ‘unquestionable moral virtue’ (Lockie, 2000: 21). Similarly within criminology, most scholarly research about crime and violence has privileged urban settlement as the ideal laboratory of criminological research, neglecting the study of violence in rural contexts. It should not be surprising then that violence in rural societies has attracted little scholarly attention until recently. This neglect is linked to the idea that violence is antithetical to an imagined but idealist conception of what is rural.  This paper, base on our chapter to the collection on Violence in Australia, challenges the myth perpetuated by modernisation thesis – that rural communities are relatively free of crime and violence.

Restorative justice as an innovative response to violence

Jenny Bargen,1 Janet Chan 2 and Jane Bolitho 3

1 Independent researcher
2 Faculty of Law, UNSW
3 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW

There are many good reasons for criminal justice researchers and policymakers to be sceptical about initiatives that are labelled as ‘innovative’. ‘Innovative’ is a term often used for marketing to create a sense of novelty and superiority that may or may not be present in the product. That the tag ‘innovative’ helps sell not only consumer goods but also public policy is symptomatic of a commercial culture that has become ubiquitous in contemporary social life. Yet, as we will argue in this paper, ‘innovative’ can have a tangible meaning in criminal justice. We focus on one of the less well known and rarely promoted ‘innovative justice’ responses -the post-sentence Victim Offender Conference (VOC) run by the Restorative Justice Unit of Corrective Services NSW—and discuss why this form of restorative justice (RJ) practice has the capacity to be a truly innovative response to criminal violence in Australia.

 

Biography

Julie Stubbs is a criminologist whose research is largely focused on gender and criminal justice. Duncan Chappell is a lawyer, criminologist and previously Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology. Ross Homel ‘s passion is crime and violence prevention, for which he has won many awards.Kerry Carrington is an international leader in southern criminology, youth justice, rural crime, gender and violence.Russell Hogg is a leading scholar in theoretical criminology, punishment and society, the politics of law and order, and crime and justice in rural communities. Jenny Bargen is a research consultant and previously Director,  Youth Conferencing in NSW.

12

ABOUT ANZSOC

The society is devoted to promoting criminological study, research and practice in the region and bringing together persons engaged in all aspects of the field. The membership of the society reflects the diversity of persons involved in the field, including practitioners, academics, policy makers and students.

Conference Managers

Please contact the team at Conference Design with any questions regarding the conference.
© 2018 Conference Design Pty Ltd