Restorative Justice & Weaker Sections:
Role Of Judiciary In The Perspective Of Delinquency Prevention
What Are We Talking About:
‘In the little world in which children have their existence, there is nothing so finely perceived and finely felt as injustice.’
Indeed, this is what Pip believed in the second half of the 19th century which indubitably remains a global debatable issue even now- in the wake of 21st century. The strong perception of manifest injustice has always been deep-rooted in the delinquents. What moves us, reasonably enough, is not the realization that the world falls short of being completely just- which few of us expect- but that there are clearly remediable injustices around us which we want to eliminate. One of the ways of eliminating injustice is through the application of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. However, for that we first need to have an unambiguous comprehension of the terms ‘restorative’ and ‘justice’- both independently and collectively - as well as a keen insight into the working of the criminal justice system and its socio-economic impact in the changing world.
At the outset, the word ‘restorative’ means to restore or make restitution, that is, to bring back to an original condition or to put (someone) back in a former position. On the other hand, ‘justice’ is the quality of being just; conformity to the principles of righteousness and rectitude in all things; strict performance of moral obligations; practical conformity to human or divine law; integrity in the dealings of men with each other; rectitude; equity; uprightness or fairness or a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her or its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.
Although, Restorative justice is an emerging concept and difficult to speak about yet it is so vital for the well-being of human society and for the notion of complete justice that it is impossible to remain silent about it’s imperative need.
A Focus On Putting Right The Wrong’: Some Definitions
A. Tony Marshall - Restorative justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offense come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offense and its implications for the future.
B. Howard Zehr- Viewed through a restorative justice lens, "crime is a violation of people and relationships. It creates obligations to make things right. Justice involves the victim, the offender, and the community in a search for solutions which promote repair, reconciliation, and reassurance."
C. Russ Immarigeon - Restorative justice is a process that brings victims and offenders together to face each other, to inform each other about their crimes and victimization, to learn about each others' backgrounds, and to collectively reach agreement on a 'penalty' or ' sanction.'
D. Kevin I. Minor and J. T. Morrison - Restorative justice may be defined as a response to criminal behavior that seeks to restore the losses suffered by crime victims and to facilitate peace and tranquility among opposing parties.
Hence, in common parlance Restorative Justice is a way of seeing crime as more than breaking the law – it also causes harm to people, relationships, and the community. So a just response must address those harms as well. If they are willing, the best way to do this is for the parties themselves to meet and discuss the harms as well as chalk out measures to bring about resolution which may even lead to transformational changes in their lives.
Justice And Social Responsibility –‘Doing Full Justice’
Restorative Justice is a problem-solving approach to crime which involves the parties themselves, and the community generally, in an active relationship with statutory agencies. It is not any particular practice, but a set of principles which may orientate the general practice of any agency or group in relation to crime. Restorative Justice may be seen as criminal justice embedded in its social context, with the stress on its relationship to the other components, rather than a closed system in isolation.
Restorative Justice is centrally concerned with restoration: restoration of the victim, restoration of the offender to a law - abiding life, restoration of the damage caused by crime to the community. Restoration is not solely backward-looking; it is equally, if not more, concerned with the construction of a better society in the present and the future.
Principles And Objectives
Ø To attend fully to victims’ needs – material, financial, emotional and social (including those personally close to the victim who may be similarly affected)
Ø To prevent re–offending by reintegrating offenders into the community
Ø To enable offenders to assume active responsibility for their actions
Ø To recreate a working community that supports the rehabilitation of offenders and victims and is active in preventing crime
Ø To provide a means of avoiding escalation of legal justice and the associated costs and delays.
Backdrop Of Restorative Justice
While Albert Eglash is generally credited with coining the term "restorative justice" in his 1977 article "Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution," the idea of justice to which he referred was not new. Restorative justice is not a "new wave" movement on the fringe of legal practice. Restorative approaches to crime date back thousands of years:
In Israel, the Pentateuch specified restitution for property crimes.
In Sumeria, the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2060 B.C.) required restitution for offenses of violence.
In Babylon, the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1700 B.C.) prescribed restitution as a sanction for property offenses.
In Rome, the Twelve Tables (449 B.C.) ordered convicted thieves to pay double the value of stolen goods.
In Germany, tribal laws promulgated by King Clovis I (496 A.D.) called for restitutional sanctions for both violent and nonviolent offenses.
In England, the Laws of Ethelbert of Kent (c. 600 A.D.) included detailed restitution schedules.
A new approach to crime and punishment through the process of mediation between the offender and the victim of his crime was adopted in U.S.A. and Western European countries during mid 1970s. It was termed as and ‘Victim – Offender Mediation’ (VOM). The process involved encounters between victims, offenders and mediators offering opportunity to the offender to explain his conduct or apologise to the victim. The family members of the offender and/or the victim and community members could also be present in such mediation meetings. The victim gets a chance to explain how he/she was mentally, materially or physically affected as a consequence of the crime and the offender gets an opportunity to respond and restore justice to the victim.
Grave Need Of Restorative Approach In The Justice System
‘Justice should not be done as settling an old account but rather as opening a new one.’
Restorative justice has emerged as a new form of justice in the arena of criminal administration of justice. New justice practices are one of several developments in a larger justice field, which also includes the 'new penology' and 'unthinkable punishment policies'. 'The psychology of punitive justice' contrasts two methods of responding to crime. One termed as 'the attitude of hostility toward the lawbreaker or juvenile', which 'brings with it the attitudes of retribution, repression, and exclusion' and which sees a lawbreaker as an 'enemy'. The other, is the 'reconstructive attitude', which tries to 'understand the causes of social and individual breakdown, to mend the defective situation', to determine responsibility by 'not placing punishment but by obtaining future results'.
However, there is a crying need to inculcate the restorative approach in the juvenile judicial administration worldwide. Many countries have adopted and synchronized restorative justice in their legal justice of delinquency prevention. But still there are many countries which still practice and profess barbaric forms of justice ideals which are a serious lacuna in their judicial systems.
Restorative Or/And Legal Justice
One of the prominent concerns both within and outside Restorative Justice has been the boundary between negotiatory practices and the workings of the criminal justice system. There are concerns that the due-process safeguards for rights, equality and proportionality could all be lost. There are also concerns that the power of judicial agencies might undermine and convert the aims of restorative practices. Some have argued for completely separate and parallel systems, neither interfering with the other while others have countered that this would not lead to Restorative Justice at all, because all it gained would be destroyed by the alienating and negative effects of Adversarial Justice.
It is, in fact, difficult to see how, in practice, two independent systems could co-exist. There is bound to be some influence each way, and therefore the problem cannot be avoided. Even though Restorative Justice involves a greater or lesser degree of devolution of control to individual citizens and communities, it is now generally accepted that Restorative Justice can and should be integrated as far as possible with Legal Justice as a complementary process that improves the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of justice as a whole. The idea of restorative justice in delinquency prevention is gaining ground throughout the world as alternatives to the present justice processes. It is this concept of integrated or ‘whole’ justice which underlies the concept of Restorative Justice. It is not just a matter of new and different practices, but of traditional practice too, informed by the same underlying principles. In this way the two processes reinforce one another to mutual benefit, and evolve towards a single system in which the community and formal agencies cooperate. It is in this context that issues of legality and control must be resolved for complete justice to prevail.
Children constitute about 40% of India’s population and India has a National Policy for Children declaring children to be a national asset. Even so majority of India’s children continue to be in difficult circumstances. India has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and obligated itself to work towards ensuring all the rights enshrined therein to all its children.
The section of society which needs assistance for their development is generally known as weaker sections of the society. Some legal absolutes seem imperative on the issue that jail for juveniles should be outlawed. Status offenders should not be put into secure detention and finite limits should be set on how long a child can be detained before or after adjudication whereby the minimum standards for physical structure, staff, and program should be enforced by the courts. Even then, we should not cease inquiring whether there are yet better and more enlightened ways to use the interlude after arrest to help juveniles so that, unless they are innocent, or so blighted that removal from the community before or after trial is an almost indisputable necessity, there may be no need for the rest of the progress at all. We have to concretise the measures to be taken in the present case under the available law and the available facilities. Till now, The mainstream of criminal justice has not been refined by restorative legislations.
Restorative Justice And Delinquency Prevention: The Indian Scenario
Regrettably, our juvenile justice system still thinks in terms of terror, not cure, of wounding, not healing, and a sort of blind man's buff is the result. This negative approach converts even the culture of juvenile homes into junior jails. From the reformatory angle, the detainees are left to drift, there being no constructive programmes for the detainees nor correctional orientation and training for the institutional staff. MOREOVER, the State's response to punitive issues relating to juveniles has been stricken with 'illiteracy' which must rise to a new 'enlightenment', if not, at least be prompted by the international year of the Child.
Indubitably, juvenile detention needs a new focus and a new rationale. The detention period ought to be used to begin to draw together resources necessary for constructive change, whether or not the juvenile is adjudicated. There is abundant evidence that detention has failed as an isolated interlude between those more dramatic parts of the juvenile justice system-arrest and trial or disposition.
The Juvenile judge is charged with the solemn determination whether to deprive juveniles of liberty or whether they can be released in their parents' custody or to a third party and, if so, what conditions should apply to the release. In making such a decision the judge should follow due process, that is, hearing procedures and in all probability the legal presumption should favour release. If the decision is to detain, the judge must make a record to support that decision. The legality of preventive detention in the juvenile court needs to be tested. If the power is upheld, the procedural safeguards should be as precise as they are for adults. We should abandon the notion that secure detention is good for the child.
Current Indian ethos and standards of punitive deterrence make several offences as heinous offence. The offenders, however, are children and the dilemmatic issue is to fix the sentencing guidelines when juvenile delinquents come before the court. 'Justice and the Child' is a distinct jurisprudential-criminological branch of socio-legal speciality which is still in its infant status in India and many other countries, the Children Act is a preliminary exercise, the Borstal School is an experiment in reformation and even Section 360 Cr. P.C. tends in the same direction. Correction informed by compassion, not incarceration leading to degeneration, is the primary aim of this field of criminal justice. Juvenile justice has constitutional roots in Articles 15(3) and 39(e) and the pervasive humanism which bespeaks the superparental concern of the State for its child-citizens including the most vulnerable, juvenile delinquents.
The penal pharmacopeia of India, in tune with the reformatory strategy currently prevalent in civilised criminology, has to approach the child offender not as a target of harsh punishment but of humane nourishment. This is the central problem of sentencing policy when juveniles are found guilty of delinquency. A scientific approach may insist on a search for fuller material sufficient to individuate the therapy to suit the criminal malady. However, at this juncture, restorative justice may well be the answer.
Juvenile Delinquency: A Better Understanding Of The Concept
The etymological meaning of ‘juvenile’ is a ‘young person’ or a child and of ‘delinquency’ is failure in or ‘omission of duty’ or ‘fault’ or crime. Juvenile delinquency indicates any failure in or omission of duty or fault or crime on the part of a child. Likewise delinquent, according to dictionary means an individual who fails or leaves his duty or a transgressor. So it refers to an offender or a transgressor who is a child. So in brief, delinquent propensities or acts of children as well of adolescents are treated as juvenile delinquency.
Backdrop Of The Concept: Juvenile Delinquency In India
It is something different in nature as compared to other societies. For example, vandalism is treated as an expression of juvenile offence. In our country one can find that urchins are destroying public properties like street bulbs, buses, school property, and so on. Then theft is also prevalent. Different types of cases are found. To give an example there are youngsters who are employed in households as servants or cooks. Generally these boys if they get opportunities depart secretly with valuables. There are also pilfering cases. In fact the most vulnerable part is railways, juveniles are doing pilfering of whose property generally. A large number of neglected or destitute children take shelter in railway stations. It is the valuables of railway station very often tempt a common sight that neglected child. Neglected children, who are allowed to hawk in the streets, learn smoking and get addicted to cinema and bad literature and like. So in order to get money for this, they try to steal, cheat, and thereby involving themselves in many other wrongful activities.
Another reason is that they are more often very easily tempted by asocial elements and are being used for circumventing law. These children who are in need of basic needs want money even for their bread. They get money by involving themselves in minimum of labour. In this way, the anti-social, corrupt their morals and they in the long run develop delinquent propensities. Syed Hussiain who has discussed about the nature and extent of juvenile rebellion has also mentioned vandalism, theft, pilfering, and street hawking as the nature as well as the source of juvenile delinquency in India. This fact is well reflected by the crime rate in India and the number of juveniles involved in the same.
Legislative Enactments: Who Is A Juvenile
The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was applicable when the incident took place, in terms whereof, a juvenile, under Section 2(h) was defined as a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years. The Parliament, however, enacted, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It came into force with effect from 1st April, 2001.Section 2(k) defines 'juvenile' to mean a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. Further, section 20 of the Act can be read for a better understanding of the concept.
A Constitution Bench held that Section 20 of the Act as quoted above deals with the special provision in respect of pending cases and begins with a non obstante clause. The sentence "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act came into force" has great significance. The proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court referred to in Section 20 of the Act are relatable to proceedings initiated before the 2000 Act came into force and which are pending when the 2000 Act came into force. The term "any court" would include even ordinary criminal courts. If the person was a "juvenile" under the 1986 Act the proceedings would not be pending in criminal courts. They would be pending in criminal courts only if the boy had crossed 16 years or the girl had crossed 18 years. This shows that Section 20 refers to cases where a person had ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986 Act but had not yet crossed the age of 18 years then the pending case shall continue in that court as if the 2000 Act has not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, shall forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile.
The Act of 2000 intends to give the protection only to a juvenile within the meaning of the said Act and not an adult. In other words, although it would apply to a person who is still a juvenile having not attained the age of 18 years but shall not apply to a person who has already attained the age of 18 years on the date of coming into force thereof or who had not attained the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence but has since ceased to be a juvenile. The Court has in a large number of decisions directed an enquiry to be made as regards the age of the juvenile.
Recently the Parliament introduced Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (in terms whereof retrospective and restorative meaning was given to the definition of 'juvenile' stating that "juvenile in conflict with law" means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence.
In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Raghavbhai Vashrambhai and Ors., the honourable judge Justice J.N. Bhatt had opined that, “In a realm of victimology the decision is one of the aspect towards the fulfilling the design and desideratum and restorative justice to the victims of crime. ”(Emphasis added)
In a recent judgment, in the case of Anupam Sharma Vs. NCT of Delhi and Anr., the honourable judge Justice Pradeep Nandrajog had observed that, “Restorative justice may be used as a synonym for mediation. The object and nature of restorative justice aims at restoring the interest of the victim. Involvement of the victim in the settlement process is welcome in the process of restorative justice. It is a process of voluntary negotiation and concertation, directly or indirectly between the offender and the victim.”
Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Rules, 2007
In these rules the concept of restorative justice has been given due importance. The definition of detention states that detention in case of juveniles in conflict with law means "protective custody" in line with the principles of restorative justice. The principle of best interest of the juvenile has been defined as that the traditional objectives of criminal justice, retribution and repression, must give way to rehabilitative and restorative objectives of juvenile justice.
Programs Of Restorative Justice
A number of programs have become associated with restorative justice because of the processes they use to respond to and repair the harm caused by crime:
Ø victim-offender reconciliation/mediation programs use trained mediators to bring victims and their offenders together in order to discuss the crime, its aftermath, and the steps needed to make things right.
Ø conferencing programs/encounters are similar to victim-offender reconciliation/mediation, but differ in that they involve not only the offender and victim, but also their family members and community representatives.
Ø victim-offender panels bring together groups of unrelated victims and offenders, linked by a common kind of crime but not by the particular crimes that have involved the others.
Ø victim assistance programs provide services to crime victims as they recover from the crime and proceed through the criminal justice process.
Ø prisoner assistance programs provide services to offenders while they are in prison and on their release.
Ø community crime prevention programs reduce crime by addressing its underlying cause.
United States Of America : Balanced and restorative justice
Our 'approved schools' like our adult prisons sometimes remind us of animal farms, if only judges care to visit jails
As of March 2006, at least 17 states have included balanced and restorative justice in the purpose clauses of their juvenile court. Balanced and restorative justice strives to balance the attention paid to the needs of all parties affected by crime: victim, offender, and community. The principles of balanced and restorative justice serve as a guide for actions taken to achieve that balance with an explicit focus on meeting the needs of crime victims. This system has three main goals:
• Accountability: Balanced and restorative justice strategies provide opportunities for offenders to be accountable to those they have harmed and enable them to repair the harm caused to the extent possible.
• Community safety: Balanced and restorative justice recognizes the need to keep the community safe. Community safety can be accomplished through balanced and restorative justice strategies by building relationships and empowering the community to take responsibility for the well-being of its members.
• Competency development: Balanced and restorative justice seeks to increase the pro-social skills of offenders. Addressing factors that lead youth to engage in delinquent behaviour and building on the strengths evident in each youth increases their competencies.
Juvenile justice, sometimes called child justice, is often perceived as the natural playground for restorative justice. Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. In this respect restorative justice refers to the implementation of a theory of justice that focuses on crime and wrongdoing as perpetrated against the individual or community rather than the state. The wide and deep implementation of restorative justice principles, in particular when dealing with young people, has been recognised as the ‘green’ way to go. This is so, because the principles of restorative justice do not, either actually or symbolically, reduce incidents otherwise recognised as offences/crimes and, which give rise to societal reaction and censure, to a bundle of predefined and pre-structured rights relations. A broader focus, which includes as the case may be the perspective of individuals, encompasses the social environment from which a conflict emerged. In this process, in which young people are recognised as persons in formation, and where the emphasis is on reparation, also with regard to victims, the full potential for personal development is maintained.
Restorative justice is a different way of thinking about crime and our response to crime. It focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime and reducing future harm through crime prevention. It also requires offenders to take responsibility for their actions and for the harm they have caused. However, it seeks redress for victims, recompense by offenders and reintegration of both within the community through a co-operative effort by communities and the government.
Food For Thought
· If the source of the problem of delinquency is in the community, family, schools, why do all casework strategies target only individual offenders for change and why are these other institutions so seldom involved in the change process?
· If the problem is really that an offender has harmed some person and/or the community, why are victims and community representatives not directly involved in the sanctioning and the rehabilitation process and why isn’t restoration of victims the primary focus of sanctioning?
· If the problem is a lack of integration, rehabilitation, and habilitation, why do correctional strategies focus on isolation of offenders?
Its time we, instead of asking what law was broken, who broke it, how should they be punished, start asking questions like who has been hurt, what are their needs and who is responsible for making things right. We have to maintain a fine balance between hope and despair. In the end it’s all a question of balance.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world" -Mahatma Gandhi
# Charles Dickens, Great Expectations (1860-61) (London : Penguin, 2003), Chapter 8, p. 63.
# Collins English Dictionary (2003) , HarperCollins Publishers , available at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/restore
# Available at http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ju/justice181970.html
# Available at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justice
# Tony Marshall, Restorative Justice: An Overview, Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999. pg. 5.
# Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice, Scottdale, Ontario: Herald Press, 1990. pg. 181.
# Russ Immarigeon , The Impact of Restorative Justice Sanctions on the Lives and Well-Being of Crime Victims: A Review of the International Literature in Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime, edited by Gordon Bazemore and Lode Walgrave. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 1999. pg. 306.
# Kevin I. Minor and J. T. Morrison "A Theoretical Study and Critique of Restorative Justice." in Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, edited by Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson. Monsey, NY; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Criminal Justice Press and Kugler Publications, 1996. pg.117.
# As John Braithwaite observes "Restorative justice has been the dominant model of criminal justice throughout most of human history for all the worlds' people" in Braithwaite, J , Crime, Shame and Reintegration. , 1989,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
# Restorative justice – History available at http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Restorative_justice_-_History/id/4708902
# Dr. N.V. Paranjape, Studies in Jurisprudence and Legal Theory , 5th Edition, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 1998, pg. 172-73
# Feeley, Malcolm and Jonathan Simon 'The new penology; notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications', Criminology 30(4): 449-74, 1992.
# Tonry, Michael 'Rethinking unthinkable punishment policies in America', UCLA Law Review, 1999.
# Mead, George Herbert 'The psychology of punitive justice', pg. 226-231, The American Journal of Sociology , 1917-18 [reprinted in The Sociology of Punishment, Dario Melossi]
# Messmer, K & Otto, H (Eds), Restorative Justice on Trial, 1992 Rotterdam: Kluwer.
# Bazemore, G., Pranis, K., and Umbreit, M. 1997. Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A
# Framework for Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century. Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Klein, A. 1996. Alternative Sentencing: A Practitioner's Guide. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company
# Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar, 1977CriLJ1921
# Satto and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. ,AIR 1979 SC 1519
# Patricia M. Wald has strengthened this perspective in a recent book on "Pursuing Justice for the Child" p. 135-136.
# United States Supreme Court stated in Williams v. New York 337 U.S. 241
# Special provision in respect of pending cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.
# Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, 2000CriLJ2971, Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2005CriLJ3091
# Subal Duley v. State of West Bengal, 2008(3)CHN268
# Balu @ Bakthvatchalu v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 2008 SC 1434, Jitendra Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2006CriLJ2464, Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. 2006CriLJ2791, Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., 1990CriLJ2671, Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, 1998CriLJ390, Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005CriLJ126
# Came into force with effect from 23.8.2006
# Section 2 of Act
# Clause (l)
# (2003)1GLR205, para 146
# 146(2008)DLT497, para 69
# Passed by Ministry of Women and Child Development vide Notification No :GSR679(E) on 26.10.2007
# Chapter I, Rule 2(f)
# Chapter II, Rule 3, available at http://www.manupatra.co.in/Pers/Personalized.aspx
# Christopher Bright , Programmes of restorative justice, Prison Fellowship International, 1997 also available at http://www.restorativejustice.org/university-classroom/01introduction/tutorial-introduction-to-restorative-justice/processes
# Originated from the efforts of the Mennonite Central Committee
# Originated from the Maori traditions in New Zealand. The conferencing idea was subsequently borrowed and adapted by jurisdictions in Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Singapore, and South Africa.
# Patricia M. Wald, Pretrial Detention for Juveniles-Pursuing, Justice for the Child ed. By Margaret K. Rosenheim, p. 119
# Griffin, Patrick, Linda Szymanski, and Melanie King, National Overviews, State Juvenile Justice Profiles, National Center for Juvenile Justice Online (2006).
# Ashley, Jessica and Phillip Stevenson, Implementing Balanced and Restorative Justice: A Guide for Defense Attorneys, Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2006
The author can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org