Internationally, many youth justice systems aim to divert young people from court through informal mechanisms, such as police cautions and restorative conferences. Among other things, diversion avoids the potentially criminogenic effects of formal contact with the criminal justice system. However, in some instances, the sum of court appearances and diversionary procedures indicates an overall increase in the numbers of young people having contact (formal or informal) with the criminal justice system — a phenomenon known as net-widening. This article summarises previous debates about the risks of net-widening. It then presents results from analysis of over 50,000 police records pertaining to young people's contact with the Tasmanian criminal justice system between 1991 and 2002. Across that decade, court appearances markedly reduced, while a corresponding increase in diversions was recorded. There was no evidence of net-widening. However, there was a significant increase in detention orders. Implications for policy and future research are considered.
AhmedE.HarrisN.BraithwaiteJ.BraithwaiteV. (2001). Shame management through reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AlderC.PolkK. (1985). Diversion programmes. In BorowskiA.MurrayJ. (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Australia (pp. 277–289). North Ryde, Australia: Methuen.
3.
AustinJ.KrisbergB. (1981). Wider, stronger and different nets: the dialectics of criminal justice reform. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(1), 165–196
4.
BazemoreG. (1997). The ‘community’ in community justice: issues, themes, and questions for the new neighborhood sanctioning models. The Justice System Journal, 19(2), 193–227
5.
BlaggH.WilkieM. (1997). Young people and policing in Australia: the relevance of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 3(2), 134–156
6.
BraithwaiteJ. (1999). Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice (pp. 1–127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BraithwaiteJ. (1994). Thinking harder about democratising social control. In AlderC.WundersitzJ. (Eds.), Family conferencing and juvenile justice (pp. 199–216). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
8.
BraithwaiteJ.PettitP. (1990). Not just deserts: A republican theory of criminal justice. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
9.
BriscoeW.WarnerK. (1986). Children's Court procedures in Tasmania. Hobart, Australia: Department of Community Welfare.
10.
CohenS. (1985). Visions of social control. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
11.
CondliffeP. (1998). The challenge of conferencing: moving the goal posts for offenders, victims and litigants. Australian Dispute Resolution Journal, 9(20), 139–149
12.
Crawford,A.NewburnT. (2003). Youth offending and restorative justice: implementing reform in youth justice. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
13.
CurranD. (1988). Destructuring, privatizations, and the promise of juvenile diversion: compromising community-based corrections. Crime and Delinquency, 34(4), 363–378
14.
Department of Community Services. (1991). Corrective services for young people (Issues Paper 2). Hobart, Australia: Author.
15.
DitchfieldJ. (1976). Police cautioning in England and Wales. London: HMSO.
16.
FarringtonD.BennetT. (1981). Police cautioning of juveniles in London. British Journal of Criminology, 21(2), 123–135
17.
FarringtonD. (1977). The effects of public labelling. British Journal of Criminology, 17(2), 112–125
18.
FreibergA.FoxR.HoganM. (1988). Sentencing young offenders. Smithfield, Australia: Law Reform Commission.
19.
GarlandD. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology, 36(4), 445–471
20.
GellerJ.FisherW.GrudzinskasA.ClayfieldJ.LawlorT. (2006). Involuntary outpatient treatment as ‘deinstitutionalized coercion’: the net-widening concerns. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry.29, 551–562.
21.
GoldW.WilliamsJ. (1970). National study of the aftermath of apprehension. Prospectus3, 3–12
22.
HayesH.DalyK. (2004). Conferencing and re-offending in Queensland. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(2), 167–191
23.
HoyleC.YoungR.HillR. (2002). Proceed with caution: An evaluation of the Thames Valley Police initiative in restorative cautioning. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
24.
LatimerJ.DowdenC.MuiseD. (2001). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A metaanalysis. Toronto, Canada: Department of Justice.
25.
MacallairD.MalesM. (2004). A failure of good intentions: an analysis of juvenile justice reform in San Francisco during the 1990s. Review of Policy Research, 21(1), 63–77
26.
Magistrates Court Tasmania.(1999). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 1999. Launceston, Australia: Magistrates Chambers.
27.
Magistrates Court Tasmania.(2000). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2000. Launceston, Australia: Magistrates Chambers.
28.
Magistrates Court Tasmania.(2001). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2001. Launceston, Australia: Magistrates Chambers.
29.
Magistrates Court Tasmania.(2002). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2002. Launceston, Australia: Magistrates Chambers.
30.
Magistrates Court Tasmania.(2003). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2003. Launceston, Australia: Magistrates Chambers.
31.
Magistrates Court Tasmania.(2004). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2004. Launceston, Australia: Magistrates Chambers.
32.
Magistrates Court Tasmania.(2005). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2005. Launceston, Australia: Magistrates Chambers.
33.
Magistrates Court Tasmania.(2006). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2006. Launceston, Australia: Magistrates Chambers.
34.
MaxwellG.HayesH. (2006). Restorative justice developments in the Pacific Region: A comprehensive survey. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(2), 127–154
35.
MaxwellG.MorrisA. (1996). Research on family group conferences with young offenders in New Zealand. In MorrisA.MaxwellG.GalawayB. (Eds.), Family group conferences: Perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 108–110).Annandale, Australia: Federation Press.
36.
MooreD.ForsytheL. (1995). A new approach to juvenile justice: An evaluation of family conferencing in Wagga Wagga.Wagga Wagga, Australia: Charles Sturt University.
37.
MooreD.O'ConnellT. (1994). Family conferencing in Wagga Wagga: A communitarian model of justice. In AlderC.WundersitzJ. (Eds.), Family conferencing and juvenile justice (pp. 45–86). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
38.
MorrisA.MaxwellG. (2003). Restorative justice in New Zealand. In von HirschA.ShearingC.AshworthA. (Eds.), Restorative justice and criminal justice: Competing or reconcilable paradigms? (pp. 257–272). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
39.
ParkinsonC. (1958). Parkinson's law: The pursuit of progress. London: John Murray.
40.
PrichardJ. (2004). Juvenile conferences and restorative justice in Tasmania. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Tasmania, Australia.
41.
PolkK.AlderC.MullerD.RechtmanK. (2003). Early intervention: Diversion and youth conferencing: A national profile and review of current approaches to diverting juveniles from the criminal justice system. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Attorney-General's Department.
42.
PolkK.>(1994). Family conferencing: Theoretical and evaluative questions. In AlderC.WundersitzJ. (Eds.), Family conferencing and juvenile justice (pp. 123–140). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
43.
PowerP. (2000). Restorative conferences in Australia and New Zealand. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Sydney: Australia.
44.
RobertsL.IndermaurD. (2006). Timely intervention or trapping minnows. The potential for a range of net-widening effects in Australian drug diversion initiatives. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law13(2), 220–231
45.
SandorD. (1993). Juvenile justice: the thickening blue wedge. Alternative Law Journal, 18(3), 104–108
46.
SandorD. (1994). The thickening blue wedge in juvenile justice. In AlderC.WundersitzJ. (Eds.), Family conferencing and juvenile justice (pp. 15–44). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
47.
SarreR. (1999). Family conferencing as a juvenile justice strategy. The Justice Professional, 11(4), 259–271
48.
SchelkensW. (1998). Community service and mediation in the juvenile justice legislation in Europe. In WalgraveL. (Ed.), Restorative justice for juveniles: Potentialities, risks and problems for research (pp. 158–181). Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.
49.
StrangH. (2003). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
TaylorN. (2007). Juveniles in detention in Australia, 1981-2006 (Technical background paper, No. 26). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
51.
von HirschA.AshworthA.ShearingC. (2003). Restorative justice and criminal justice: Competing or reconcilable paradigms. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
52.
WarnerK. (1994). Family group conferences and the rights of the offender. In AlderC.WundersitzJ. (Eds.), Family conferencing and juvenile justice: The way forward or misplaced optimism (pp. 142–153). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
53.
WhiteR. (1994). Shaming and reintegrative strategies: Individuals, state power and social interests. In AlderC.WundersitzJ. (Eds.), Family conferencing and juvenile justice. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
54.
WundersitzJ. (1996). The South Australian juvenile justice system: A review of its operation. Adelaide, Australia: Graphic Print Group.
55.
ZehrH. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Scottsdale, AZ: Herald Press.
