This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cook, K. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Doing difference and accountability in restorative justice conferences

University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA

This article analyses social dynamics in restorative justice conferences employing two distinct meanings of accountability: one embodied in performing gendered (and other) social relations, and the second, in performing remorse. Engaging feminist theory of ‘doing gender’ and structured action, offenders’ accounts of their behaviour, gendered participation of parents and community representatives are analysed. Specifically examined are three ideals of restorative justice: empowerment, remorse and reintegration, and bridging barriers between participants. The data analysed are from extensive field notes collected during six months of research into restorative justice in Australia and as a practitioner in Maine. Analyses reveal that achieving these ideals is more elusive than anticipated. Rather, accountability dynamics around gender, race and social class reinforce social privileges and disadvantage.

Key Words: accountability • doing difference • doing gender • restorative justice • white privilege

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Balfour Falling Between the Cracks of Retributive and Restorative Justice: The Victimization and Punishment of Aboriginal Women Feminist Criminology, April 1, 2008; 3(2): 101 - 120. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Daly and J. Stubbs Feminist engagement with restorative justice Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2006; 10(1): 9 - 28. [Abstract] [PDF]