Abstract
This article presents the findings of an in-depth comparative study of remand decision-making in youth courts in England & Wales and the Netherlands. Informed by qualitative empirical research, this article explores differences and similarities in remand decision-making and in the functions of remand in the administration of youth justice. A key finding is that in Dutch youth justice a paternalistic and interventionist perception of the ‘welfare principle’ seems to be an important informal driver of the (relatively) high youth remand rates, whereas in the English youth justice system the ‘welfare principle’ seems to function rather as a protective mechanism against an overzealous use of youth remand. Ultimately, the article explores how different legal traditions and ‘proximal processes’ might explain and shape cross-national differences in the use of remand for youth and identifies several areas for further inquiry that can potentially advance our broader international comparative understanding of youth remand practices.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 100487 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-14 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice |
| Volume | 66 |
| Early online date | 15 Jun 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sept 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This article presents findings from the research project Different but equal? Strengthening equality for children in the juvenile justice system, which is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO Stimuleringsimpuls, Rubicon), grant no. 019.183SG.006 .
Funding Information:
This article presents findings from the research project Different but equal? Strengthening equality for children in the juvenile justice system, which is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO Stimuleringsimpuls, Rubicon), grant no. 019.183SG.006.The author would like to thank the Ministry of Justice of England and Wales, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the legal team managers and staff of the two selected English youth courts for their permission to conduct the empirical research and the interview respondents for their participation. The author would also like to thank Ms Avril Calder for supporting the project. Moreover, the author is grateful to the University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology, for hosting the research project, particularly to Dr Caroline Lanskey for her guidance throughout the project. The author is also grateful to the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) for funding the project. This article also refers to findings from two previous studies on remand decision-making in Dutch youth courts, as to which the author would like to thank the Dutch Council of the Judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and the participating courts and respondents, as well as his fellow researchers who contributed to one of these previous studies: Dr Hilde Wermink, Apollonia Bolscher LLM, C?ril van Leeuwen LLM, Prof Dr Mari?lle Bruning and Prof Dr Ton Liefaard (cf. Van den Brink et al. 2017). Finally, the author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s)
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
Funding
This article presents findings from the research project Different but equal? Strengthening equality for children in the juvenile justice system, which is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO Stimuleringsimpuls, Rubicon), grant no. 019.183SG.006 . This article presents findings from the research project Different but equal? Strengthening equality for children in the juvenile justice system, which is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO Stimuleringsimpuls, Rubicon), grant no. 019.183SG.006.The author would like to thank the Ministry of Justice of England and Wales, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the legal team managers and staff of the two selected English youth courts for their permission to conduct the empirical research and the interview respondents for their participation. The author would also like to thank Ms Avril Calder for supporting the project. Moreover, the author is grateful to the University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology, for hosting the research project, particularly to Dr Caroline Lanskey for her guidance throughout the project. The author is also grateful to the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) for funding the project. This article also refers to findings from two previous studies on remand decision-making in Dutch youth courts, as to which the author would like to thank the Dutch Council of the Judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and the participating courts and respondents, as well as his fellow researchers who contributed to one of these previous studies: Dr Hilde Wermink, Apollonia Bolscher LLM, C?ril van Leeuwen LLM, Prof Dr Mari?lle Bruning and Prof Dr Ton Liefaard (cf. Van den Brink et al. 2017). Finally, the author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Keywords
- Bail
- Comparative research
- Pre-trail detention
- Remand
- Youth court
- Youth justice
