RISK FACTORS LEADING TO DELINQUENT BEHA VIOUR

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Restorative Justice

Zehr ( 1990:211) describes restorative justice as follows: ‘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 that promise to repair, reconciliate and reassure’. Marshall (Restorative Justice 1995:6), describes restorative justice as ‘ … a way of dealing with victims and offenders by focusing on the settlement of conflicts arising from crime and resolving the underlying problems which cause it. … Central to restorative justice is recognition of the community, rather than criminal justice agencies, as the prime site of crime control’. Restorative justice is based on reparation, in other words, an attempt to repair the damage caused by the crime, either materially or symbolically (Restorative Justice 1995:6). Zehr (1990:197) argues that ‘ … violations create obligations’ and that ‘ … when someone wrongs another, he has an obligation to make things right’. Therefore, the goal of restorative justice is to heal the wounds of every person affected by the crime, including the victim and the offender. Restorative justice seeks to redefine crime as an injury or wrong done to another person instead of a crime against the state. It encourages direct involvement of victim and the offender in resolving any conflict through dialogue and negotiation (Restorative Justice 1995:6).

Victim-Offender Mediation (or Reconciliation)

A programme that makes use of Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM) involves direct or indirect communication between victims and offenders. VOM has the aim of facilitating communication between victims and offenders with the help of a mediator. An opportunity is provided for both parties to express their thoughts and feelings about the crime. An opportunity is also given to settle the conflict in a way that will be acceptable to both parties. VOM is an empowering process aimed to give those involved the opportunity to settle their own conflicts instead of being the subjects of decisions imposed upon them by justice officials. YOM is based on a restorative justice perspective (Muntingh 1993:1 ). YOM is a process in which the victim and the offender are brought together by a trained mediator to discuss what has happened in a criminal offence and to explore options for resolving the issues surrounding the offence. The primary goal is reconciliation (VORP Volunteer Handbook 1990:4,7; see 1.2.2.6)

8 Family Group Conferences

Family group conferences are also based on restorative justice and also have victims and offenders as central role players. Family Group Conferences are based on the notion that families and communities have traditionally dealt with offending and that they are the people who know best how to deal with this behaviour. It also involves hearing both the victim and offender’s story as we11 as finding a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved. Participants involved in family group conferences include the victim, the family and other support persons of the victim, the offender, family or other support persons of the offender. Other concerned parties such as the police, social workers or affected members of the community and a facilitator also attend these sessions (Branken 1 997:6-7; see 1.2.2.6).

Control theory (Hirschi 1969)

Numerous references in delinquency and offender research are made to Hirschi’s control theory as stated in his book ‘Causes of Delinquency’ (1969). Classic control theory indicates that two elements of social bonding, attachment and involvement, are related to deviant behaviour. According to this theory people with strong bonds to society are less likely to deviate from conventional behaviour. Hirschi ( 1969) indicates that delinquency is likely to be the result of weak attachment to significant adults such as parents and teachers, poor commitment to conventional goals and activities such as school as well as low involvement in these activities. He also found that delinquent youths often do not have strong beliefs in societal norms. When these aspects of attachment and involvement are not present, a weak ‘bond’ is said to exist with family and society and the youth is therefore free to engage in delinquent behaviour (Anderson, Holmes & Ostresh 1999:435, 437; Bemburg & Thorlindsson 1999:447-448; Broidy 1995:542; Gottfredson, Grottfredson & Skroban 1998:318; Lerman 1994:5)

Cognitive theories

The movement towards cognitive intervention and restructuring began in Canada in the 1980’s. Similar treatment programmes could be found in Oregon, California, Georgia, Vermont and Michigan by 1995. The common assumptions of these programmes are that cognitive deficits (e.g. limited abstract reasoning) and/or cognitive distortions (e.g. denials of responsibility) are criminogenic (see 1.6.14). As early as 1915, Healy identified that ‘bad habits of the mind’ rather than social circumstances lead to criminal behaviour (Baro 1999:466). Yochelson and Samenow ( 1976, 1977) identified ‘thinking errors’ or cognitive distortions that support criminal behaviour (Baro 1999:467). Criminogenic thinking (see 1.6.14) is described as the result of delays or interruptions in the development of the individual and social competencies. Cognitive distortions can include minimizing the offence (‘it isn’t so bad’), taking the role of the victim, denying that the behaviour caused harm, denying responsibility for the crime by insisting that there was no real victim, but only someone that ‘asked for it’, (Baro 1999:466-467; Henning & Frueh 1996:525; Hollin 1990:10-14; Tate, Repucci & Mulvey 1995:778; Ward 2000:491). Cognitive impulsivity, concrete reasoning, a lack of social perspective and poor interpersonal problem-solving were identified as cognitive deficits (Wright, Buzzel, Wright & Gay 1994 :206). Cognitive interventions with offenders are based on the assumption that individuals can change their behaviour once they change their thinking

CHAPTER 1 ORIENTATION AND BACKGROUND :

• 1.1 INTRODUCTION
• 1.2 ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM
  • 1.2.1 Awareness of the problem
  • 1.2.2 Investigation of the problem
  • 1.2.2.1 DepartmentofWelfare
  • 1.2.2.2 Boys’ Towns
  • 1.2.2.3 Leeukop youth prison
  • 1.2.2.4 Baviaanspoort Emthonjeni
  • 1.2.2.5 Dyambu Youth Centre
  • 1.2.2.6 National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (N1CRO):
  • 1.2.2.7 Challenge to Change: Rubicon Network
  • 1.2.3 Problem Statement
• 1.3 A_ »IMS o·F THE STUDY
  • 1.3.1 General Aims
  • 1.3.2 Specific Aims
• 1.4 RESEARCH METHOD
  • 1.4.1 Literature Study
  • 1.4.2 Empirical study
• 1.5 DEMARCATION OF THE STUDY
• Restorative Justice
  • 1.6.14 Criminogenic Needs
  • 1.6.15 Therapeutic
  • 1.6.16 Rehabilitation
  • 1.6.17 Victim-Offender Mediation (or Reconciliation)
  • 1.6.18 Family Group Conferences
  • 1.6.19 Experiential Learning
• 1.7 RESEARCH PROGRAMME
• 1.8 CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER2 THEORETICAL AND JUDICIAL ASPECTS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE COMPILATION OF A THERAPEUTIC PROGRAMME
  • 2.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 2.2 THEORIES ON YOUTH OFFENCE
    • 2.2.1 Control theory (Hirschi 1969)
    • 2.2.2 Self-control Theory (also referred to as general theory)
    • 2.2.3 Labeling theory
    • 2.2.4 Strain Theory
    • 2.2.5 Cognitive theories
    • 2.2.6 Learning theories
      • 2.2.6.1 Social Learning theory
      • 2.2.6.2 Differential Association Theory (Sociological Theory)
    • 2.2. 7 Reality Theory
    • 2.2.8 Developmental Adaptation theory
    • 2.2.9 Biological theories
    • 2.2.1 0 Psychobiological Theory
    • 2.2.11 Summary of theories
  • 2.3 RISK FACTORS LEADING TO DELINQUENT BEHA VIOUR
    • 2.3.1 The family
    • 2.3.2 Peer group
    • 2.3.3 Learning Disabilities
    • 2.3.4 Psychiatric disorders
    • 2.3.5 Gender
    • 2.3.6 Cultural Factors
    • 2.3.7 Age of0nset
    • 2.3.8 Drug use
    • 2.3.9 Street Children
    • 2.3.10 Self-concept
    • 2.3.11 Locus of control
  • 2.4 TREATMENT APPROACHES
    • 2.4.1 Group Therapy
    • 2.4.2 Multisystemic Therapy
    • 2.4.3 Experiential Leaming
  • 2.5 REVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IN SOUTH AFRICA
  • 2.6 THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN SOUTH AFRICA
  • 2.6.1 Terminolo!:,:ry
  • 2.6.1.1 Common Law
  • 2.6.1.2 Statute
  • 2. 6. 1. 3 Statutory Offence
  • 2.6.1.4 Statutory Provision
  • 2.6.1.5 District Court
  • 2.6.1.6 Regional Court
  • 2.6.1.7 High Court
  • 2.6.1.8 Supreme Court of Appeal
  • 2.6.1.9 Constitutional Court
  • 2.6.2 Age and criminal responsibility
  • 2.6.3 Assessment of offenders
  • 2.6.4 Conversion of a criminal case to a Children’s Court inquiry
  • 2.6.5 ChildJusticeCourt
  • 2.6.6 One-Stop Child Justice Centres
  • 2.6.7 Classification of Criminal Offences
  • 2.6.7.1 Offences classified as Schedule 1 offences are (SA Law Commission: Report on Juvenile Justice 2000:311 ):
  • 2.6.7.2 Offences classified as Schedule 2 offences are (SA Law Commission: Report on Juvenile Justice 2000:311):
  • 2.6.7.3 Offences classified as Schedule 3 offences are (SA Law Commission: Report on Juvenile Justice 2000:31 1):
  • 2.6.8 Detention of youth offenders
  • 2.6.8.1 Principles for the detention of youth offenders
  • 2.6.8.2 Releasing children prior to the preliminary inquiry
  • 2.6.8.3 Release at the preliminary inquiry
  • 2.6.8.4 Detention of the child after the preliminary inquiry
  • 2.6.9 Diversion
  • 2.6.1 0 Sentencing of youth offenders
  • 2.6.10.1 Postponement or suspension of sentences
  • 2.6.1 0.2 Community-based sentences
  • 2.6.1 0.3 Prison
  • 2.6.1 0.4 Correctional supervision
  • 2.6.10.5 Referral to a residential facility
  • 2.6.1 0.6 Fines
  • 2.6.10.7 Restorative justice sentences
  • 2.6.1 0.8 Prohibition on certain forms of punishment
  • 2.6.11 Summary of the juvenile justice system
  • 2. 7 CONCLUSION
  • PROGRAMMES FOR OFFENDERS
  • 3.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE REHABILITATION PROGRAM-MES
  • 3.3 INTERNATIONAL DIVERSION PROGRAMMES
    • 3.3.1 A Diversion Programme for First-Time Shoplifters
    • 3.3.2 Nokomis Challenge Programme
    • 3.3.3 The Diversion Plus Programme
  • 3.4 INTERNATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAMMES
    • 3.4.1 Paint Creek Youth Center Residential Programme
    • 3.4.2 A Wilderness Programme in Western Australia
    • 3.4.3 Spectrum Wilderness Programme
    • 3.4.4 The Hope Centre Wilderness Camp (HCWC)
    • 3.4.5 Worth the Risk! Creative Groupwork with Adolescent offenders
    • 3.4.6 Cognitive Self-Change Programme
  • 3.4. 7 Strategies for Thinking Productively (STP)
    • 3.4.8 The Lifestyle Change Programme (LCP)
    • 3.4.9 Group Home Treatment Programmes
    • 3.4.1 0 Youth Enhancement Services
    • 3.4.11 The Second Chance Programme
  • 3.5 SOUTH AFRICAN PROGRAMMES
    • 3.5.1 Boys’ Town, Magaliesburg
    • 3.5.2 Leeuwkop Youth Prison
    • 3.5.3 National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO) The YES programme
    • 3.5.4 The Journey
    • 3.5.5 Criminon
  • 3.6 CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER4 COMPILATION OF THE PROVISIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAMME
• CHAPTERS RESEARCH DESIGN
• CHAPTER6 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
A THERAPEUTIC PROGRAMME FOR THE REHABILITATION OF YOUTH OFFENDERS