Mark Halsey

Drawing on primary data from a unique crime prevention initiative in Australia, this article examines how a small group of co-offenders harnessed the pro-social dimensions of their offending to co-desist from crime. We focus particularly on the evolving nature of group dynamics and the roles played by policing (including non-policing), innovative ‘24/7’ casework, and the provision of a culturally safe divergent setting in the emergence of co-desistance scenarios. We show how initial apprehensions around co-offenders associating in the community were unfounded and in fact proved key to the success of such an approach. Building on the supported desistance literature, the article positions co-desistance as a related but distinct concept worthy of further study in its own right.

This paper explores the symbolic and instrumental impacts associated with labelling particular groups of young people as perpetrators of organised gang activity. Using case studies from two Australian cities, we point primarily to the constitutive and damaging nature of much media and public discourse about youth gang crime and show how young offenders’ disadvantage and disenfranchisement is rendered largely invisible or immaterial to understanding the causes and solutions to such problems. In an era of “fake news”, social media “echo chambers”, civil conflict, mass international migration / forced diasporas, as well as the reassertion of strong sovereign borders, we ask: how might one de-escalate the “monstering” of young people whose identity (and presence and place in society) is known primarily, if not exclusively, through the “noise” and visibility of their offending?

Despite media suggestions that youth violence is the result of an epidemic of young thugs “out of control”, this paper argues that youth violence is emblematic of complex political, economic and socio-cultural conditions. This introductory paper discusses some of the key themes and articles from our special issue on Youth violence: De-escalation strategies and socio-legal responses, which is the result of a workshop held at the Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law in July 2019. It seeks to reflect the rich tapestry of factors, contexts and processes that can place young people at risk of offending, or, perhaps even more importantly, at risk of criminalisation, as presented in the special issue collection. We reflect on the range of perspectives presented across the special issue on youth violence and the de-escalation of such violence, which seek to advance knowledge, and identify strategies for regulating and preventing this behaviour.

The conclusion draws together the main arguments made throughout the book and poses concrete responses to the key questions which frame the work.

This article draws from and reflects on some of the key results of the three-year evaluation of Australia’s first and only Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) based in Melbourne, Victoria. It explores how the relationship between the court and other dimensions of the NJC set the tone for client-centred but fully accountable approaches to dealing with criminal matters. While the physical design and layout of the NJC properly lend themselves to therapeutic outcomes, it is argued that the commitment to particular principles – in particular, an empathic and respectful approach to NJC client engagement – is of key importance for doing ‘real’ justice.

This article examines the link between unresolved childhood trauma and loss issues and the impact on serious offending into and beyond early adulthood. Drawing on in-depth interview data with second- and third-generation prisoners, I revisit the work of Fairbairn and position criminal conduct as the material manifestation of the persistent and treacherous ‘return of bad objects’ in adult offenders’ lives. Close attention is given to how custodial environments address prisoners’ trauma and loss issues, and, more pointedly, to how the failure to bring such issues safely to the fore has real implications for prisoner reintegration and public safety. In concluding, I argue that even the best therapeutic work in custodial environments is liable to falter if not matched with concerted efforts to transform the social, economic and cultural milieus to which people return on release.

Generativity, defined as the actions of an individual or group that enable others to care in meaningful ways for themselves and their significant others, has become an important concept for thinking about desistance from crime. In this article, we explore opportunities for prison officers in metropolitan and regional South Australia to model and/or engage in generative conduct. We find the emergence of generativity to be idiosyncratic—linked to individual officer’s capacities to resist the dominant “us” versus “them” culture—and to be often thwarted by a fatalistic outlook. Correctional policy implications are discussed.