....Research in the last decade in Australia, the USA and the UK has also shown that young offenders represent a group at high-risk of unidentified oral language impairments.
In other words, they have problems expressing themselves verbally by accessing appropriate vocabulary, formulating meaningful sentences, and adequately understanding the complex language we often use.
To complicate matters further, much of what transpires between us as speakers and listeners in everyday life is not literal in meaning – we use idioms and a range of other linguistic devices such as sarcasm, irony and various kinds of humour.
My own research has indicated that in both community and custodial samples of young male offenders, such problems reach clinical thresholds in about 50 per cent of cases.
This is not to say that RJC shouldn’t be used with young offenders. But evidence on the oral language ability of this group raises important questions about the extent to which such young people can be assumed to have the skills needed to genuinely engage in a highly conversational process that is intended to be restorative in nature – both for the victim(s) and for the young person.
In the case of young people who have been maltreated and not received the care they need when growing up, one might indeed wonder about what is being restored.
Has this young person ever had empathy displayed towards them when they have been wronged and are distressed? Have they learnt the language of empathy and remorse and how to use this under pressure? If they are unable to access words that express these sentiments, how can they appear genuine in their remorse? How will it be perceived if the young person shrugs his shoulders and gives mono-syllabic responses? What does all of this mean for the young offender’s experience of the RJC and for that of their victim(s)?
Like most social scientists, I am well aware of the evidence that shows us that simply punishing young people for their wrong-doing does not lead to reduced recidivism or the adoption of socially acceptable values and behaviour.
But we need to take great care, and apply high standards of critical thinking, when seeking approaches that are a good philosophical fit with our desire to promote better outcomes for young offenders.