Reducing Juvenile Crime: Conferencing versus Court

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: predicting recidivism in youth. (2014, background): “Restorative justice conferences have been shown to increase youths’ perceptions of procedural justice (McGarrell, 2001; Sherman & Barnes, 1997) and decrease the likelihood of reoffending in some cases (Luke & Lind, 2002; McGarrell & Hipple, 2007; Sherman & Barnes, 1997).”
Assessing Reoffending in Restorative Justice Conferences (2005, methodology): “In a recent study of conferencing and reoffending in NSW, Luke and Lind (2002) showed that measures of reoffending varied from postintervention arrest to reconviction.”
Youth justice conferencing and reoffending (2003, methodology): “Scholars have long recognised the many problems of defining and measuring reoffending (Maltz, 1984). Despite these problems, Gendreau, Little and Goggin's (1996) meta-analysis of 131 studies of adult re-offending suggests general patterns.”
Family Group Conferencing and Re‐Offending Among First‐Time Juvenile Offenders: The Indianapolis Experiment (2007, background): “The Indianapolis findings are generally consistent with studies indicating restorative justice practices, and FGC in particular, may reduce re-offending (e.g., Braithwaite; 2002, Luke & Lind, 2002).”