Gender, Power and Restorative Justice:

A Feminist Critique Jodie Hodgson

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/gender-power-and-restorative-justice-a-feminist-critiq
ue-jodie-hodgson/
CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Gender, Power and

Restorative Justice
A Feminist Critique

Jodie Hodgson
 Critical Criminological Perspectives

Series Editors
Reece Walters
Faculty of Law
Deakin University
Burwood, VIC, Australia

Deborah H. Drake
Department of Social Policy & Criminology
The Open University
Milton Keynes, UK
The Palgrave Critical Criminological Perspectives book series aims
to showcase the importance of critical criminological thinking when
examining problems of crime, social harm and criminal and social justice.
Critical perspectives have been instrumental in creating new research
agendas and areas of criminological interest. By challenging state defined
concepts of crime and rejecting positive analyses of criminality, critical
criminological approaches continually push the boundaries and scope of
criminology, creating new areas of focus and developing new ways of
thinking about, and responding to, issues of social concern at local,
national and global levels. Recent years have witnessed a flourishing of
critical criminological narratives and this series seeks to capture the
original and innovative ways that these discourses are engaging with
contemporary issues of crime and justice. For further information on
the series and to submit a proposal for consideration, please get in touch
with the Editor: Josephine Taylor, Josephine.Taylor@palgrave.com.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14932
 Jodie Hodgson

Gender, Power and

Restorative Justice
A Feminist Critique
Jodie Hodgson
Manchester Centre for Youth Studies
Manchester Metropolitan University
Manchester, UK

ISSN 2731-0604     ISSN 2731-0612 (electronic)

Critical Criminological Perspectives
ISBN 978-3-030-90826-3    ISBN 978-3-030-90827-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to my grandparents, George and Patricia
Chatterton.
 Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank those who participated in this
study. The youth offending teams who agreed to allow me access to
undertake the empirical work and the practitioners who, generously, gave
their time to be interviewed and talk openly to me about their insights. I
am sincerely grateful. Most of all I would like to express my gratitude to
all of the girls, who took part in this study, for agreeing to share their
experiences with me. If it were not for these girls, the research would not
have been possible.
I would like to acknowledge and thank Janet Jamieson and Helen
Monk who supervised my PhD research. I am especially thankful to Joe
Sim. If it was not for Joe, I would likely have never submitted a proposal
for this book let alone finish it. Thank you so much for all your guidance,
support and encouragement throughout the process and thank you for
giving your time generously to comment on my draft chapters.
Thank you to Jan Andre Lee Ludvigsen for his support, patience,
encouragement and proof-reading. Special thanks to my incredible friend
Kym Atkinson for her feedback on draft chapters and generally teaching
me so much. Thanks to Kay Inckle for her feedback and support.
I want to thank colleagues and friends at Leeds Beckett University, in
particular Lewis Simpson and Alexandria Bradley. Friends and colleagues
at Liverpool John Moores University, in particular Lindsey Metcalfe, for

vii
viii Acknowledgements

setting up the writing groups where much of this book was written. My
friends and colleagues at the University of Liverpool writing group. My
best friends, Jenny, Hannah, Stu and Elen.
Finally, I want to acknowledge my family. In particular, my sister
Amie, if it wasn’t for her, I probably wouldn’t have gone to university in
the first place. My brother Lee and most of all I want to acknowledge and
thank my mum Sara. Thank you for everything you do, and have done,
for me, and thank you for always being proud of me.
 Contents

1 Introduction  1

2 Girls and Youth Justice  21

3 An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power  45

4 Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting

Perspectives and Alternative Narratives to Dominant
Discourses  77

5 Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding

Structural Inequalities in Relation to Gender  107

6 Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising

Restorative Justice Through a Gendered Lens  145

7 Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology  169

8 Conclusion  193

ix
x Contents

A
 ppendix: Methodology 203

References225

Index229
 List of Tables

Table 1 Number of interviews conducted with girls within each

participating youth offending service 213
Table 2 Number of interviews conducted with practitioners within
each participating youth offending service 214
Table 3 Age of respondents by order and youth justice supervision/
intervention to which they were subject 216
Table 4 Job role and gender of youth justice practitioners interviewed
for this study 217

xi
 1
Introduction

This book is rooted within issues of social justice for girls in conflict with
the law. It is a development of doctoral research which consisted of a criti-
cal exploration of offending girls’ experiences of participating in a restor-
ative justice (RJ) conference as part of a youth justice intervention in
England. Focusing on the individual narratives of girls and young women
who form part of an inherently neglected group of young people in con-
flict with the law, this book expands feminist engagement with RJ by
focusing critical attention on the importance of the social construction of
gender, the exercise of power, shame, stigma, muting and resistance to
girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. The book ties RJ to the exercise of
patriarchal power. Focusing on the gendered nature of shame and stigma,
the book contends that RJ conferencing can produce harmful implica-
tions for girls and young women who participate. Ultimately, it is argued
that anti-carceral, social policy alternatives, underpinned by feminist
praxis, should replace a youth justice jurisprudence for girls.
The empirical research project underpinning this study sought to
extract and evaluate meaning from girls’ experiences in order to develop
new and alternative forms of knowledge relating to RJ. These new forms
of knowledge do not claim, as Ballinger (2016, p. 4) states, to arrive ‘at an

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_1
2 J. Hodgson

immutable “truth” … since the potential for excavating new knowledge

always exists’ but aims to provide a space in which alternative narratives
to dominant discourse can emerge.
As Bryson (1992, p. 4 cited in Mooney, 2000, p. 75) states, there are a
‘“maze” of theories and perspectives which exist within feminism’.
Although not all those discussing gender are feminists and not all femi-
nists share the same theoretical and methodological standpoints, there are
a number of central tenants that feminist work shares. At the core of these
insights is, firstly, ‘the recognition that gender is a central organising prin-
ciple of social life’ and a ‘socially constructed’ concept that determines
social norms and expectations, which regulate the behaviour of males and
females through discourses of masculinity and femininity (Renzetti,
2018, p. 74). Secondly, the discourses of masculinity and femininity cre-
ate ‘exclusive’ gender categories, which positions masculinity as ‘more
highly valued’ than femininity, due to the patriarchal system of control
upon which society operates (ibid., p. 75). The prioritising of women’s
experiences and subjectivities as well as the recognition that gender inter-
sects with multiple experiences of inequalities on the basis of ethnicity,
class, sexuality and (dis)ability accounts for a further core principle of
feminist theoretical perspectives. Finally, all of these core principles are
underpinned by a commitment to collective actions to eradicate gender
inequality (ibid.).
No single feminist approach has been utilised, in the development of
this book. It intends to be established as a contribution to feminist crimi-
nological research, which distinguishes individual experiences as being
shaped by gender. It is the social construction of gender that binds the
methodological and theoretical perspectives together. Although the
empirical study underpinning this book is concerned with girls, who
have committed an offence, and have been subject to youth justice inter-
vention, the discussion and analysis to be developed form a coherent
argument that identifies the processes and dynamics of social control to
which all women and girls are subject. In doing this, it will demonstrate
how all females are judged against their adherence to idealised forms of
femininity and provide a framework in which to understand how these
processes shape girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing.
 1 Introduction 3

 dvancing Feminist Perspectives on Girls

A
in the Youth Justice System
Within criminological theory and enquiry, female offending has remained
largely under-theorised in comparison to male offending. Initial perspec-
tives that did offer accounts of female offending considered it only in
relation to ‘pseudo-scientific psycho-biological theories’ which adopted
‘an entirely uncritical attitude towards sexual stereotypes of women and
girls’ (Smart, 1976, p. 4). The prominence of such gendered, stereotypi-
cal presuppositions (e.g., Cowie et al., 1968) ‘offered only narrow and
distorted caricatures’ of female offending which ‘relied on the notions of
“normal” femininity regulated through the concepts of morality, respect-
ability, frailty and naturalness’ (Monk & Sim, 2017, p. 4).
It was not until the 1970s that feminist contributions to criminology
began to emerge. Beginning with the publication of Women, Crime and
Criminology, Smart (1976) paved the way for the emergence of a ‘distinc-
tive feminist criminology … [which] set out to challenge some of the
gender-blind assumptions inherent within criminology’ (Burman &
Gelsthorpe, 2017, p. 213). The book was pioneering in its advocation of
alternative and critical perspectives towards the construction of crime
and deviance and the responses to them. The contributions of Smart’s
seminal work served to disrupt the fallacious positivism inherent within
Criminology at the time and its focus on pathological explanations of
crime and deviance (Monk & Sim, 2017).
Since then, feminist contributions to the social sciences have contin-
ued to emphasise the need for radical change through collective action
and resistance to the micro, meso and macro levels of patriarchal power
operating in the lives of all women and girls. Moreover, justice alterna-
tives which are underpinned by a commitment to radical and transforma-
tive social change in order to disrupt and disassemble the social,
institutional and structural injustices to which women and girls are sub-
ject continue to emerge. Thus, the ‘ruptural’ effect of feminist interven-
tions into the social sciences, described by Stuart Hall (1996, p. 269) over
two decades ago, has not remained stagnant and feminism continues to
restructure and transform notions of power and knowledge.
4 J. Hodgson

Within the discipline of criminology, feminist contributions have been

successful in constructing debates concerning women, crime and victimi-
sation and have continued to pioneer the argument for the inclusion of
women (and girls) in the study of crime and criminalisation. As such vast
amounts of theoretical developments, research and debates have emerged,
which have highlighted the ways in which ‘offending, victimisation and
institutional responses to these issues are fundamentally gendered’
(Renzetti, 2018, p. 76).
Reflecting on the contributions made by her pioneering book Women,
Crime and Criminology, on the 40th anniversary of its publication, Carol
Smart reiterated the need for the continuation, and development, of new
feminist work within the broad field of criminology (Smart, 2017). This
book responds to this call and intends to extend the continuum of femi-
nist work within criminology through broadening the scope of feminist
scholarship to include RJ practices used with girls in the youth justice
system. ‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ explores the experiences
of 15 girls involved in the youth justice system and who have participated
in a RJ conference and the perspectives of 13 youth justice practitioners.
When it comes to girls involved in the youth justice system, their
voices and experiences are often overlooked and neglected. In 2009,
Burman and Batchelor argued that:

Young women offenders fall between two stools. Policy responses to youth offend-
ing focus primarily on young men (ignoring gender) and policies in relation to
women offenders fail to differentiate between older and younger women (ignor-
ing age). (Burman & Batchelor, 2009, p. 270)

This neglect and invisibility has continued into the third decade of the
twenty-first century. For example, high-profile reports aimed at reform-
ing how the criminal justice system responds to women in conflict with
the law, such as The Corston Report (2007) and The Female Offender
Strategy (Ministry of Justice, 2018), have neglected to address issues spe-
cific to girls. Further to this, girls remain ‘a minority in both community
and custody settings’ (Agenda Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk,
2021, p. 27). As a result, there continues to be a lack of understanding
about the needs and experiences of girls, which are distinguished from
 1 Introduction 5

their young male and adult female counterparts based on their age and
development (Burman & Batchelor, 2009). The major consequence of
this is that there is limited understanding of the needs of girls involved in
the youth justice system and how best to respond to them. They are
‘effectively pigeon-holed into a criminal justice system designed for the
male majority’(All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal
System, 2012, p. 5). This neglect of girls and their experiences is what
prompted the development of the empirical research explored within
this book.
As noted by Skinner et al. (2005), p. 12), ‘enabling the voices of
women [and girls] and other marginalised groups to be heard and their
experience valued’ is central to feminist enquiry. By focusing on girls’
experiences of RJ, this book intends to contribute to the gap in knowl-
edge concerning girls and youth justice interventions and ensure their
experiences do remain at the margins of academic scholarship and policy
discourse relating to young people in conflict with the law. This book is
therefore concerned with bringing to the forefront of academic inquiry
the voices of girls who have, thus far, remained unheard within the con-
text of RJ research.
As will be discussed in the following chapter, the international evi-
dence base and literature surrounding RJ are vast, and this existing body
of knowledge reflects the proliferation and popularity of RJ practice
which has swept across countries and continents in recent decades. This
book, therefore, does not intend to revisit this existing knowledge base
but to contribute to the significant lacuna in knowledge concerning girls
and RJ. In order to do this, it is first necessary to briefly explore the theo-
retical underpinnings and principles of RJ as it has developed throughout
the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

A Brief Overview of Restorative Justice

There is no single meaning or definition of RJ; therefore, explicitly under-
standing what RJ is in theory, and in practice, is not straightforward
(Johnstone, 2011; McCold, 1998; Van Ness & Strong, 2002). Although
6 J. Hodgson

there continues to be no universally agreed upon definition of RJ, it is

commonly understood as:

A process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively

resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications
for the future. (Marshall, 1999, p. 5)

In recent decades the concept has gained significant popularity and

momentum within criminal justice, political and academic discourse
internationally (Cunneen & Goldson, 2015; O’Mahony & Doak, 2017).
Proponents of RJ consider it to be a progressive alternative to responding
to crime and deviance and an optimistic way to address existing problems
inherent within the criminal justice system (London, 2013). The founda-
tions of RJ philosophy are concerned with repairing harm following the
aftermath of an offence, as opposed to the infliction of punishment, and
are regarded as a radical alternative to punitive methods of dealing with
offending behaviour, which limits the role of the state in delivering jus-
tice (ibid.). At the centre of RJ philosophy is the desire for an inclusive,
participatory approach to conflict resolution, which emphasises the
importance of restoring relationships between victims, offenders and
their communities (Crawford, 2002).
The values of RJ, such as ‘inclusion’, ‘resolution’ and ‘amends’ (Van
Ness & Strong, 2015, p. 49), have become attached to RJ policy and
practice, and it has received unprecedented support on an international
scale including endorsement from both the Council of Europe and the
United Nations Economic and Social Council in advocating for the use
of RJ as a response to youth crime (Lynch, 2010; Schiff, 2013). Further
to this is the development of an international evidence base indicating
that RJ interventions have a beneficial effect on victim satisfaction
(Shapland et al., 2011; Sherman & Strang, 2007).
Within youth justice, RJ has gained momentum in Australia in the
form of family group conferencing, implemented initially in New
Zealand by The Children, Young Persons and Families Act 1989. In a UK
context, statutory-based RJ, similar to the family group conferencing
model, was implemented in Northern Ireland in the form of The Youth
Conferencing Service by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002
 1 Introduction 7

(Campbell et al., 2005), and in Ireland, diversionary based family confer-

ences were introduced by the Children Act (2001) (Kilkelly, 2014). In
England and Wales, RJ has become embedded into the youth justice
sphere following its formal implementation as a response to youth crime
by The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the subsequent Youth Justice
and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Hodgson, 2020).

Shame and Restorative Justice

Whilst the popularity of RJ continues to expand within and beyond
criminal and youth justice settings and various manifestations of practice
continue to emerge, RJ remains at the centre of a debate concerning the
delivery of criminal and youth justice within Western society. One of the
reasons for this is because the ‘social dimensions of restorative justice’
have come to be closely associated with the idea of ‘reintegrative shaming’
developed by Braithwaite (Marshall, 1999, p. 30). The central premise of
reintegrative shaming theory is:

that locations in space and time where shame is communicated effectively

and reintegratively will be times and places where there is less predatory
crime. (Braithwaite & Braithwaite, 2001, p. 39)

The theory, therefore, emphasises the fundamental role shame occu-

pies in criminal sanctioning and its ability to prevent offending
(Braithwaite, 1989). The process of shaming can be described as ‘all social
processes of expressing disapproval which [have] the intention or effect of
invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by
others who become aware of the shaming’ (ibid., p. 100).
Braithwaite (1989, p. 85) suggested that the social conditions, which
facilitate reintegrative shaming, are contained within a ‘communitarian
society [which] combines dense networks of individual interdependen-
cies with strong cultural commitments to mutuality of obligation’. He
suggested that such societies ‘not only have the capacity to deliver more
potent shaming, but they can also deliver shaming which is more
8 J. Hodgson

reintegrative’ (ibid., p. 87). According to Braithwaite (ibid., p. 9), sham-

ing within this context functions as a process of ‘moralizing social control’.
Braithwaite (1989, p. 55) acknowledges that ‘shaming runs the risk of
counterproductivity when it fades into stigmatization’. He refers to a dis-
tinction between ‘reintegrative’ shaming and ‘disintegrative shaming’
(ibid., p. 55). Reintegrative shaming is ‘shaming which is followed by
efforts to reintegrate the offender back into the community … through
words or gestures of forgiveness or ceremonies to decertify the offender as
deviant’ (ibid., p. 101). The theory specifies that shaming, within the
context of reintegration, should therefore only focus upon the deviant
act, not the individual, and is distinguished from stigmatisation through
attempts to ‘maintain bonds’ following the experience of shame.
Disintegrative shaming, however, can be understood as ‘stigmatic sham-
ing’ (ibid., p. 105) and consists of:

shaming in which no effort is made to reconcile the offender with the com-
munity. The offender is outcast, her deviance is allowed to become a master
status, degradation ceremonies are not followed by ceremonies to decertify
deviance. (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 101)

The theoretical arguments contained within reintegrative shaming

theory are considered to be an important influence with respect to the
growth of RJ in Western society and have had a significant practical
impact on the development of RJ practice, particularly RJ conferencing
(Retzinger & Scheff, 1996; Young & Goold, 1999). RJ conferencing is a
process whereby ‘victims and offenders involved in a crime meet in the
presence of a trained facilitator with their families and friends or others
affected by the crime, to discuss and resolve the offence and its conse-
quences’ (Strang et al., 2013, p. 3). It is the model of RJ conferencing
which appears to have had the most influential impact with regard to the
application of Braithwaite’s (1989) reintegrative shaming theory and the
proliferation of restorative justice practice outside of Australia and New
Zealand (Johnstone, 2011). This is because the ‘developed and applied
forms of Braithwaite’s theory are the focus in restorative justice confer-
ences’ (Kim & Gerber, 2012, p. 1064).
 1 Introduction 9

This association, between reintegrative shaming theory and RJ, has

prompted a debate concerning the appropriateness of utilising shame in
order to deliver justice (Braithwaite & Braithwaite, 2001). As a result, the
concept has come to occupy a crucial but controversial role within RJ
conferencing (Maruna et al., 2007). This is primarily due to concerns
regarding the appropriateness of shaming penalties used as a response to
offending behaviour and the extent to which evoking shame can function
in a reintegrative manner, as suggested by reintegrative shaming theory.
By focusing on girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing, through a gendered
lens, the central arguments and discussions developed within this book
aim to broaden the debate regarding the role of shame within RJ practice.
The development of this debate is concerned with critically exploring the
suitability of RJ conferencing, as underpinned by reintegrative shaming
theory, to be used as an intervention with girls involved in the youth
justice system.

 he Justification for ‘Gender, Power

T
and Restorative Justice’
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, RJ has remained a consis-
tent approach within England and Wales’s central government’s aim to
prevent young peoples’ offending behaviour and (more recently) divert
them away from the youth justice system. Whilst a body of research has
been developed, which critiques the use of RJ within the criminal and
youth justice systems, research focused upon young female offenders’
experiences of RJ interventions remains unsubstantial. Existing litera-
ture, which does discuss issues of gender and RJ, suggests that almost all
‘feminist discussions address the ways in which it may help or hinder
female victims’ and few have considered how RJ may be beneficial or
problematic for female offenders (Daly, 2008, p. 113).
At present, there continues to be no evaluation concerning the efficacy
of RJ as a response to young female offenders (Sharpe, 2012). Those com-
mentators who do address this issue have raised several concerns relating
to the use of RJ with girls who offend (ibid.). For example, the
10 J. Hodgson

appropriateness of encouraging girls to express shame for their offending,

the ways in which ‘community values and expectations’ associated with
appropriate female behaviour may influence outcomes within RJ practice
(Alder, 2003, p. 118) and the understanding that girls are more difficult
to work with compared to boys (Alder, 2003; Sharpe, 2012).
Notwithstanding a small number of exceptions (Chap. 2), the experi-
ences of offending and girls (and women) have remained neglected from
RJ discourse. The implications being that RJ has developed in a gender-
less silo, whereby the politics of gender and the gendered structural
inequalities and specific needs of girls involved in the youth justice sys-
tem have remained ostracised from RJ policy, practice and research.
By centralising the voices of girls who have participated in a RJ confer-
ence, ‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ contributes to the develop-
ment of alternative narratives to RJ discourse. Such alternative narratives
contribute to a radical reconceptualisation of RJ practices which disrupt
the gender-blindness that continues to shape RJ discourse. Through the
dissemination of alternative accounts of RJ, the book draws critical atten-
tion to issues concerning the exercise of power, gendered social control
and structural inequalities which, despite shaping the lives of girls in the
justice system and their experiences of youth justice intervention, have
been neglected by RJ research, policy and practice. The dominance of
gender-blind approaches to RJ practices therefore raise a series of funda-
mental questions concerning the appropriateness of RJ interventions
used with girls, which are addressed within this book.

Original Contribution to Knowledge

Sinhoretto and Tonche (2019, p. 230) argue that ‘the field that has
formed around restorative justice needs to open itself up to dialogue …
[as] it is only through debate, criticism and primarily self-criticism’ that
progression within the field of RJ can be achieved. They invite and pro-
voke the production of feminist and abolitionist knowledge which chal-
lenges RJ as an alternative form of justice, in order to explore how RJ may
(or may not) form part of an emancipatory strategy for gender and justice
(ibid.).
 1 Introduction 11

RJ must therefore endeavour to respond to, and engage with, the

struggles for social justice that girls who enter the youth justice system are
faced with. This means accounting for power, resistance and subjectivity,
whilst recognising how each of these issues intersect and transgress from
wider society into the RJ arena. By centralising the subjugated voices and
alternative narratives of girls who have participated in RJ, this book
makes a series of original contributions to knowledge. Such contribu-
tions broaden the scope of feminist scholarship on RJ and serves to dis-
rupt gender-blind RJ discourse and open a transformative space in which
the issues relating to the exercise of patriarchal power, shame, stigma and
marginalisation and RJ can be addressed.
The original and unique contribution to knowledge this book makes
are centred upon (i) incorporating a female voice into RJ research, (ii) a
critical conceptualisation of the role of shame and stigma in shaping girls’
experiences of RJ, (iii) providing a unique insight into offending girls’
demonstrations of agency and resistance which challenge the power of RJ
to shape their subjectivities and (iv) the proposal for a radically informed
shift in the existing treatment and responses to girls involved in the jus-
tice system through the development and application of a ‘girl-wise
penology’ underpinned by abolitionist alternatives and feminist praxis.
Female Voice RJ Research—The findings from the empirical research
underpinning this book have been produced through qualitative inter-
views with girls who have participated in RJ as part of a youth justice
intervention. The decision to undertake empirical research with girls who
offend was established upon the concern that their narratives and experi-
ences were being systematically excluded within a youth justice system
which is statistically dominated by young males who offend.
Notwithstanding the fact that empirically investigating girls’ experiences
of RJ conferencing is a difficult task, given that girls who offend are a
hard-to-reach group within criminological research (Deacon & Spencer,
2011), the participation of justice-involved girls in this research provides
a unique female voice to research on RJ.
Shame and Stigma—‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ is focused
on rethinking stigma in relation to offending girls, by conceptualising the
social construction of gender, as a macro-level form of power, which fuels
the ‘political economy of stigmatization [and shame]’ (Parker & Aggleton,
12 J. Hodgson

2003, p. 17) and the implications this might have for their participa-
tion in RJ.
Recent development in the Sociology of Stigma have contributed to an
inter-disciplinary understanding of stigma and the role it plays in rein-
forcing social and structural inequality at micro, meso and macro levels.
Drawing upon the example of RJ conferencing and girls involved in the
youth justice system, the arguments put forward in this book intend to
expand the inter-disciplinary knowledge base of stigma through a theo-
retical extension of stigma power to the perspectives of critical criminol-
ogy and feminist scholarship. Utilising theoretical accounts of stigma and
a feminist informed analysis of shame, the book explores how the social
processes underpinning stigmatization have the potential to elicit and
exacerbate feelings of shame, which are impacted by the social construc-
tion of gender and ideals of femininity. By drawing upon feminist insights
concerning discourses of femininity and gendered social control and
inequality, the original arguments within this book demonstrate how,
both, shame and stigma are produced and reinforced through a frame-
work of gendered power. In doing so this book serves to fundamentally
challenge the conceptual framework and theoretical premise, upon which
the development of restorative justice conferencing has been established,
and raises important contextual arguments about the suitability of restor-
ative justice conferencing used with girls who offend.
Stigma is discursive in nature and ‘operates as a form of governance
which legitimizes the reproduction and entrenchment of inequalities and
injustices’ (Tyler, 2013, p. 212). As young women the girls who partici-
pated in this research have long histories of stigma, evident on a struc-
tural level by virtue of their gender and the oppressive and regulatory
social norms and expectations prescribed to them through the social con-
struction of femininity, it is argued that to be female is to be subject to
stigma regardless of other intersecting factors (Laws, 1979). Focusing on
gender, the social construction of femininity and the reconceptualisation
of stigma as a ‘machinery of inequality’ (Tyler, 2020, p. 1) highlight the
relevance of, and relationship between, stigma power and gender power.
Understanding girls’ experiences of stigma through the lens of gender
inequality and injustice and connecting this gendered experience of
stigma to feelings of shame evoked as part of RJ intervention is an
 1 Introduction 13

integral component of the feminist critique of gender, power and RJ

underpinning this book and its original contribution to knowledge.
What ‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ seeks to contribute here is
an understanding of how girls’ experiences of stigma and shame form
part of the reproduction of structural inequalities and social injustice,
which shape the material and lived realities of their lives.
Resistance and Agency—In recent decades expressions of agency and
resistance have become salient not only in contesting the conceptualisa-
tion of women as passive recipients of unequal societal structures but also
in terms of contributing to more ‘nuanced understandings of the dimen-
sions of power’ (Burman & Gelsthorpe, 2017, p. 219). Gender, Power
and Restorative Justice provides a unique insight into the ways in which
girls embody strategies of resistance and demonstrate agency as a means
to make sense of, and navigate, their experience of RJ. Resistance, as an
expression of agency, is therefore concerned with relations of power and
the opportunity for action. This book explores new ways in which the
politics of power operates through resistance and agency for girls who
participate in RJ conferencing and contributes to the production of alter-
native narratives and new knowledge informed by girls’ voices.
Abolitionist Alternatives for Girls in Conflict with the Law—‘Gender,
Power and Restorative Justice’ draws attention to the muting of girls’
voices from RJ discourse and the harmful implications shame, stigma and
ideological discourses of masculinity and femininity have for girls. The
book provides a unique contribution to youth justice research through
the development and advocation of abolitionist and anti-carceral femi-
nist alternatives to youth justice responses to girls. This proposal for such
a radically informed shift in the existing treatment of girls who offend
form part of a broader discussion which contributes to the established
and emerging arguments concerning abolitionist alternatives to state
responses to criminalised women and girls and the subsequent injustices
to which they are subject. As such the alternative policy proposals under-
pinning ‘girl-wise penology’ presented in Chap. 7 of this book build
upon abolitionist and feminist perspectives on injustices perpetrated by
the state with a specific focus on the ways in which such arguments would
contribute to the dismantling of youth justice involvement in girls’ lives.
14 J. Hodgson

Summary of Chapters
This book is set out in eight chapters. Chapter 2 provides a contextual
insight into the treatment of, and responses to, ‘troublesome’ girls
(Hudson, 1989, p. 197). The chapter draws attention to the marginalisa-
tion of girls’ experiences within youth justice discourse and considers the
nature and extent of their offending behaviour. It critically explores youth
justice approaches throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries
and the gender-specific implications these approaches have had for girls
who come into contact with the youth justice system. The chapter focuses
on the themes of welfare, justice, risk, gender-responsivity and gender-­
specific provision and considers the implications each of these approaches
have for girls in terms of the social control and regulation of their behav-
iour in line with dominant discourses of femininity, net-widening,
responsibilisation and finally RJ. The chapter considers further the mar-
ginalisation of girls’ experiences from RJ policy and practice and the lim-
ited criminological research focused on this issue.
Chapter 3 links RJ to the exercise of patriarchal power. The chapter
argues that shame and stigma are deeply rooted within patriarchal power
relations. Drawing upon the incursions made within the sociology of
stigma, feminist theory and insights on shame, the chapter puts forward
a theoretical framework for understanding the ways in which dominant
discourses of femininity and masculinity and the exercise of patriarchal
power can shape girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. It also considers
the importance of agency and demonstrations of resistance in order to
reformulate gender subjectivities and challenge the social processes of
shaming and stigmatisation.
Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the individual narratives and personal
insights provided by the girls and practitioners during their interviews.
These chapters explore the disconnect between girls’ subjective experi-
ences of participating in a RJ conference and practitioners’ perspectives
concerning RJ conferencing with girls who offend. ‘Conflicting perspec-
tives of RJ in practice’, ‘issues of power and control’, ‘the victim-offender
paradox’, ‘gender-blind RJ practice’ and ‘the silencing of girls’ subjectivi-
ties’ are the themes explored in Chap. 4. Chapter 5 explores the themes
 1 Introduction 15

of ‘shame and stigma’. It is argued that shame and stigma play a central
role in girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing and produce harmful effects
for them. Both of these chapters draw attention to the ways in which the
marginalised subjectivities of girls provide alternative narratives to domi-
nant discourse on RJ approaches used in the youth justice system, devel-
oped through a gendered lens.
Drawing upon the empirical data generated from the interviews under-
taken with the girls and the practitioners, Chap. 6 draws together the
themes inherent within the empirical data and contextualises RJ in rela-
tion to broader issues of power, patriarchy and social control. It considers
the harm that can occur as a result of gender-blind RJ practices, specifi-
cally in relation to the social construction of truth relating to the ideals of
femininity, stigma and shame. The discussion concludes with an analysis
of the ways in which each of the girls interviewed demonstrated their
agency to resist and challenge the dominant discourse surrounding con-
temporary RJ practice and in doing so challenge existing RJ discourse
and the perspectives presented by practitioners.
Chapter 7 considers the wider implications and issues concerning the
harmful impact shame, stigma, dominant discourses of masculinity and
femininity and the exercise of patriarchal power has for girls within and
beyond the youth justice system. It considers whether ‘engendering’ RJ
by incorporating changes to policy and practice would be sufficient in
addressing the gender-specific needs of girls in the youth justice system
and what role, if any, shame should occupy in RJ conferencing. It is ulti-
mately argued that there is a need for a radical overhaul to the current
responses to girls in conflict with the law. Drawing upon the recommen-
dations made by Carlen (1990) for a ‘woman-wise’ penology, the chapter
lays out the framework and principles for a ‘girl-wise’ penology that con-
sists of an anti-carceral feminist response to girls embroiled in the youth
justice system. Chapter 8 critiques the ideological principles of reintegra-
tion and restoration that have been attached to RJ discourse and chal-
lenges the capacity of RJ to deliver any kind of gendered justice in the
context of a deeply divided social order built on harmful gendered
divisions.
16 J. Hodgson

References
Agenda Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk. (2021). Young Women’s Justice
Project Literature Review. Alliance for Youth Justice.
Alder, C. (2003). Young Women Offenders and the Challenge for Restorative
Justice. In E. McLaughlin, R. Fergusson, G. Hughes, & L. Westmarland
(Eds.), Restorative Justice Critical issues (pp. 117–126). The Open University.
All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System. (2012). Inquiry
on Girls: From Courts to Custody. The Howard League for Penal Reform.
Ballinger, A. (2016). Gender, Truth and State Power, Capitalising on Punishment.
Routledge.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge
University Press.
Braithwaite, J., & Braithwaite, V. (2001). Shame, Shame Management and
Regulation. In E. Ahmed, N. Harris, J. Braithwaite, & V. Braithwaite (Eds.),
Shame Management through Reintegration (pp. 3–72). Cambridge
University Press.
Burman, M., & Batchelor, S. (2009). Between Two Stools? Responding to
Young Women who Offend. Youth Justice, 9(3), 270–285.
Burman, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2017). Feminist Criminology: Inequalities,
Powerlessness and Justice. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 213–238). Oxford University Press.
Campbell, C., Devlin, R., O’Mahony, D., Doak, J., Jackson, J., Corrigan, T., &
McEvoy, K. (2005). Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conference
Service. Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice: Queens
University Belfast.
Carlen, P. (1990). Alternatives to Women’s Imprisonment. Open University Press.
Corston, J. (2007). The Corston Report: A Review of Women with Particular
Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System. : Home Office. Retrieved August
19, 2016, from www.clinks.orgs
Cowie, J., Cowie, V., & Slater, E. (1968). Delinquency in Girls. Heinemann.
Crawford, A. (2002). The Prospects of Restorative Justice in England and Wales:
A Tale of Two Acts. In K. McEvoy & T. Newburn (Eds.), Criminology, Conflict
Resolution and Restorative Justice (pp. 171–207). Palgrave Macmillan.
Cunneen, C., & Goldson, B. (2015). Restorative Justice? A Critical Analysis. In
B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 137–155). Sage
Publications.
 1 Introduction 17

Daly, K. (2008). Girls, Peer Violence, and Restorative Justice. Australia and New
Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 109–137.
Deacon, J., & Spencer, J. (2011). Sensitive Survey Research: An Oxymoron? In
P. Davies, P. Francis, & V. Jupp (Eds.), Doing Criminological Research
(pp. 139–160). Sage Publications.
Hall, S. (1996). Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies. In C. Kuan-Hsing
Chen & D. Morley (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies
(pp. 261–274). Routledge.
Hodgson, J. (2020). Offending Girls and Restorative Justice: A Critical Analysis.
Youth Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420967751
Hudson, A. (1989). Troublesome Girls, Towards Alternative Definitions and
Policies. In M. Cain (Ed.), Growing Up Good (pp. 197–219). Sage
Publications.
Johnstone, G. (2011). Restorative Justice, Ideals, Values and Debates (2nd ed.).
Oxon Willan Publishing.
Kilkelly, U. (2014). Diverging or Emerging from Law? The Practice of Youth
Justice in Ireland. Youth Justice, 14(3), 212–225.
Kim, H. J., & Gerber, J. (2012). The Effectiveness of Reintegrative Shaming
and Restorative Justice Conferences: Focusing on Juvenile Offenders’
Perceptions in Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(7), 1063–1079.
Laws, J. (1979). The Second X. Elsevier North Holland, Inc.
London, R. (2013). A New Paradigm Arises. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A Restorative
Justice Reader (2nd ed., pp. 5–1). Routledge.
Lynch, N. (2010). Restorative Justice through a Children’s Rights Lens.
International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18(2), 161–183.
Marshall, T. (1999). Restorative Justice: An Overview. Home Office, Research,
Development and Statistics Directorate.
Maruna, S., Wright, S., Van Brown, J., Merle, F., Devlin, R., & Liddle,
M. (2007). Youth Conferencing as Shame Management: Results of a Long Term
Follow-up Study. ARCS.
McCold, P. (1998). Restorative Justice: Variations on a Theme. In L. Walgrave
(Ed.), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Potentialities, Risks and Problems for
Research (pp. 19–53). Leuven University Press.
Ministry of Justice. (2018). Female Offender Strategy. Ministry of Justice. https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/719819/female-­offender-­strategy.pdf
18 J. Hodgson

Monk, H., & Sim, J. (2017). Introduction. In H. Monk & J. Sim (Eds.),
Women, Crime and Criminology, A Celebration (pp. 1–16). The Centre for the
Study of Crime, Criminalisation and Social Exclusion and EG Press Limited.
Mooney, J. (2000). Gender, Violence and the Social Order. Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Mahony, D., & Doak, J. (2017). Reimagining Restorative Justice, Agency and
Accountability in the Criminal justice Process. Hart Publishing.
Parker, R., & Aggleton, P. (2003). HIV and AIDS-Related Sigma and
Discrimination: A Conceptual Framework and Implications for Action.
Social Science and Medicine, 57, 13–24.
Renzetti, C. M. (2018). Feminist Perspectives. In W. S. DeKeseredy &
M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology (2nd ed.,
pp. 74–82). Routledge.
Retzinger, S., & Scheff, T. (1996). Strategy for Community Conferences:
Emotions and Social Bonds. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative
Justice International Perspectives (pp. 215–336). Criminal Justice Press.
Schiff, M. (2013). Institutionalizing Restorative Justice: Paradoxes of Power,
Restoration and Rights. In T. Gavrielides & V. Artinopoulou (Eds.),
Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy (pp. 153–178). Routledge.
Shapland, J., Robinson, G., & Sorsby, A. (2011). Restorative Justice in Practice:
Evaluating What Works for Victims and Offenders. Routledge.
Sharpe, G. (2012). Offending Girls: Young Women and Youth Justice. Routledge.
Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice the Evidence. The Smith
Institute.
Sinhoretto, J., & Tonche, J. (2019). Restorative Justice for Women’s Rights’. In
P. Carlen & L. A. França (Eds.), Justice Alternatives (pp. 219–234). Routledge.
Skinner, T., Hester, M., & Malos, E. (2005). Researching Gender Violence:
Feminist Methodology in Action. Willan Publishing.
Smart, C. (1976). Women, Crime and Criminology. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smart, C. (2017). Observations Through a Rear-View Mirror: Revisiting
Women, Crime and Criminology. In H. Monk & J. Sim (Eds.), Women,
Crime and Criminology, A Celebration (pp. 57–78). The Centre for the Study
of Crime, Criminalisation and Social Exclusion and EG Press Limited.
Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2013).
Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders
and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic
Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal
Britain. Zed Books.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The British Pycnogons.

Dr. George Johnston,[440] the naturalist-physician of Berwick-on-Tweed, Harry

Goodsir,[441] brother of the great anatomist, who perished with Sir John Franklin,
and George Hodge[442] of Seaham Harbour, a young naturalist of singular promise,
dead ere his prime, were in former days the chief students of the British Pycnogons.
Of late, Carpenter[443] has studied the Irish species; and the cruises of the Porcupine,
Triton, and Knight Errant have given us a number of deep-water species from the
verge of the British area.
In compiling the following list, I have had the indispensable advantage of access to
Canon Norman’s collection, and the still greater benefit of his own stores of endless
information.[444]
Pseudopallene circularis, Goodsir: Firth of Forth.
Phoxichilidium femoratum, Rathke (P. globosum, Goodsir; Orithyia coccinea,
Johnston) (Figs. 270, B; 286): East and West coasts, Shetland, Ireland.
Anoplodactylus virescens, Hodge (? Phoxichilidium olivaceum, Gosse): South
coast.
A. petiolatus, Kr. (Figs. 270, C; 275, B; 287) (Pallene attenuata and pygmaea,
Hodge; Phoxichilidium exiguum and longicolle, Dohrn): Plymouth, Firth of
Forth, Cumbrae, Irish coasts.
Ammothea (Achelia) echinata, Hodge (Fig. 265, B; 274, 4; 275, E): Plymouth,
Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Cumbrae, Durham (Hodge), West of Ireland. We
have not found it on the East of Scotland. A. brevipes, Hodge, is presumed to be
the young. Two of Dohrn’s Neapolitan species, A. fibulifera and A. franciscana,
are in my opinion not to be distinguished from one another, nor from the
present species.
A. hispida, Hodge (Fig. 266, C) (A. longipes, Hodge (juv); A. magnirostris,
Dohrn;? Pasithoe vesiculosa, Goodsir;? Pephredo hirsuta, Goodsir): Cornwall
and Devon (Hodge and Norman), Jersey. The form common on the East of
Scotland would seem to be this species. The Mediterranean A. magnirostris,
Dohrn, appears to be identical.
A. laevis, Hodge: Cornwall (Hodge), Devon (Norman), Jersey (Sinel).
Tanystylum orbiculare, Wilson (Clotenia conirostre, Dohrn): Donegal
(Carpenter).
Phoxichilus spinosus, Mont. (Fig. 265, C; 270, A; 275, C): South Coast, Moray
Firth, Firth of Clyde, Ireland. A smaller and less spiny form occurs, which
Carpenter records as P. laevis, Grube, but Norman unites the two under the
name of Endeis spinosus (Mont.).
Pycnogonum littorale, Ström (Fig. 262): on all coasts, and to considerable depths
(150 fathoms, West of Ireland).
Nymphon brevirostre, Hodge (N. gracile, Sars) (Figs. 263, 264, 267, A; 272, 274,
3): common on the East Coast; Herm (Hodge), Dublin, Queenstown
 (Carpenter). Our smallest species of Nymphon.
N. rubrum, Hodge (N. gracile, Johnston; N. rubrum, G. O. Sars): common on the
East Coast; Oban (Norman), Ireland (Carpenter).
N. grossipes, O. Fabr., Johnston (N. johnstoni, Goodsir): Northumberland, East
of Scotland, Orkney, etc., not uncommon.
N. gracile, Leach (N. gallicum, Hoek; ♂ N. femoratum, Leach): South of England,
West of Scotland, and Ireland.
N. strömii, Kr. (N. giganteum, Goodsir) (Figs. 273, 274, 2): East Coast, from Holy
Island to Shetland.
Chaetonymphon hirtum, Fabr. (Fig. 274, 1): Northumberland (Hodge), Margate
(Hoek), East of Scotland, and Ireland, not uncommon. There seems to be no
doubt that British specimens agree with this species as figured and identified by
Sars. N. spinosum, Goodsir (East of Scotland, Goodsir; Belfast, W. Thompson),
is, according to Norman, the same species. Sars’ Norwegian specimens figured
under the latter name are not identical, and have been renamed by Norman C.
spinosissimum, but are said by Meinert and Möbius to be identical with C.
hirtipes, Bell.
Hodge (1864) records Nymphon mixtum, Kr., and N. longitarse, Kr., from the
Durham coast. His full list of the recorded species of other authors also includes
the following doubtful or unrecognised species: N. pellucidum, N. simile, and N.
minutum, all of Goodsir.
Pallene brevirostris, Johnston (P. empusa, Wilson;? P. emaciata, Dohrn) (Figs.
275, A; 285): all coasts. Examples differ considerably in size and proportions, as
do Dohrn’s Neapolitan species one from another. We have specimens from the
Sound of Mull that come very near, and perhaps agree with, Sars’ P. producta, a
species that scarcely differs from P. brevirostris, save in its greater attenuation;
the same species has also been recorded from Millport and from Port Erin.
P. spectrum, Dohrn: Plymouth (A. H. Norman).

Besides the above, all of which are littoral or more or less shallow-water species,
we have another series of forms, or, to speak more correctly, we have two other
series of forms, from the deep Atlantic waters within the British area. In the cold
area of the Faeroe Channel we have Boreonymphon robustum, Bell; Nymphon
elegans, Hansen; N. sluiteri, Hoek; N. stenocheir, Norman; Colossendeis
proboscidea, Sabine; C. angusta, Sars. In the warm waters south and west of the
Wyville-Thomson ridge we have Chaetonymphon spinosissimum, Norman;
Nymphon gracilipes, Heller (non Fabr.); N. hirtipes, Bell; N. longitarse, Kr.; N.
macrum, Wilson; Pallenopsis tritonis, Hoek (= P. holti, Carpenter); Anoplodactylus
oculatus, Carpenter, and A. typhlops, G. O. Sars; and to the list under this section
Canon Norman has lately made the very interesting addition of Paranymphon
spinosum, Caullery, from the Porcupine Station XVII., S.S.E. of Rockall, in 1230
fathoms. Lastly, and less clearly related to temperature, we have Chaetonymphon
tenellum, Sars; N. gracilipes, Fabr.; N. leptocheles, Sars; N. macronyx, Sars; N.
serratum, Sars; and Cordylochele malleolata, Sars.
Of the species recorded in the above list as a whole, Anoplodactylus virescens,
Nymphon gracile, and Pallene spectrum reach their northern limit in the southern
parts of our own area; Ammothea echinata, Anoplodactylus petiolatus, Pallene
brevirostris, and Phoxichilus spinosus (or very closely related forms) range from the
Mediterranean to Norway, the last three also to the other side of the Atlantic;
Nymphon brevirostre and N. rubrum range from Britain, where they are in the
main East Coast species, to Norway. Of the Atlantic species, other than the Arctic
ones, the majority are known to extend to the New England coast.
 INDEX

Every reference is to the page: words in italics are names of genera

or species; figures in italics indicate that the reference relates to
systematic position; figures in thick type refer to an illustration;
f. = and in following page or pages; n. = note.

Abalius, 312
Abdomen, of Malacostraca, 110;
of Acantholithus, 178;
of Birgus, 176;
of Cenobita, 176;
of Dermaturus, 178;
of Hapalogaster, 178;
of Lithodes, 178;
of Pylopagurus, 178;
of Trilobites, 235;
of Scorpions, 297;
of Pedipalpi, 309;
of Spiders, 317;
of Palpigradi, 422;
of Solifugae, 426;
of Pseudoscorpions, 431;
of Podogona, 440;
of Phalangidea, 440, 443;
of Acarina, 457;
of Pentastomida, 489;
of Pycnogonida, 502
Abdominal glands, of Chernetidea, 432
Abyssal region (marine), 204;
(lacustrine), 209
Acantheis, 418
Acanthephyra, 163
Acanthephyridae, 163
Acanthoctenus, 415
Acanthodon, 388
Acanthogammarus, 138
Acantholeberis, 53
Acantholithus, 181;
A. hystrix, 178
Acanthophrynus, 313
Acari, 454 (= Acarina, q.v.)
Acaridea, 454 (= Acarina, q.v.)
Acarina, 258, 454 f.;
parasitic, 455;
external structure, 457;
spinning organs, 457;
internal structure, 459;
metamorphosis, 462;
classification, 464
Acaste, 249
Accola, 390
Acerocare, 247
Achelata, 529
Achelia, 534;
A. longipes, 506
Achtheres, 75;
A. percarum, 75
Acidaspidae, 251
Acidaspis, 226, 227, 230, 231, 235, 241, 251;
A. dufrenoyi, 250;
A. tuberculata, larva, 240;
A. verneuili, 231;
A. vesiculosa, 231
Aciniform glands, 335, 349
Acoloides saitidis, 367
Acroperus, 53;
A. leucocephalus, 52
Acrosoma, 410
Acrothoracica, 92
Actaea, 191;
habitat, 198
Actinopodinae, 387
Actinopus, 387
Aculeus, of scorpion, 303
Admetus, 313
Aegidae, 126
Aegisthus, 61
Aeglea laevis, 169;
distribution, 212
Aegleidae, 169
Aeglina, 227, 249;
Ae. prisca, 248
Agelena, 416;
A. brunnea, 367;
A. labyrinthica, 352, 353, 378, 380, 381, 416;
A. naevia, 339
Agelenidae, 325, 352, 353, 415
Ageleninae, 416
Aggregate glands, 335, 349
Aglaspis, 279
Agnathaner, 66
Agnathonia, 529
Agnostidae, 244
Agnostini, 243
Agnostus, 222, 223, 225, 231, 234, 245;
A. integer, 245
Agraulos, 247
Agroeca, 397;
A. brunnea, cocoon, 358
Albunea, 171;
respiration, 170;
distribution, 201
Albuneidae, 171
Alcippe, 92;
A. lampas, 92, 93
Alcock, on Oxyrhyncha, 192;
on phosphorescence, 151
Alepas, 89
Alima, larva of Squilla, 143
Alimentary canal, of Crustacea, 14;
of Phyllopoda, 28;
of Cladocera, 42;
of Squilla, 142;
of Malacostraca, 110;
of
Trilobites, 222;
of Arachnida, 256;
of Limulus, 268;
of Scorpions, 304;
of Pedipalpi, 310;
 of Spiders, 329;
of Solifugae, 427;
of Pseudoscorpions, 134;
of Phalangidea, 444;
of Acarina, 459;
of Tardigrada, 480;
of Pentastomida, 491;
of Pycnogous, 513
Alitropus (Aegidae), habitat, 211
Allman, on larvae of Pycnogons, 523
Alloptes, 466
Alona (including Leydigia, Alona, Harporhynchus, Graptoleberis),
53
Alonopsis, 53
Alpheidae, 163;
habitat, 198
Alpheus, 163;
reversal of regeneration, 156
Alveolus, of palpal organ of Spiders, 322
Amaurobius, 399;
A. fenestralis, 399;
A. ferox, 399;
A. similis, 399;
spinnerets, 326
Amblyocarenum, 388
Amblyomma, 470;
A. hebraeum, 456, 470
Amblypygi, 312
Ammothea, 505, 534;
A. achelioides, 534;
A. brevipes, 541;
A. echinata, 505, 509, 510, 534, 541, 542;
A. fibulifera, 522, 534, 541;
 A. franciscana, 541;
A. grandis, 534;
A. hispida, 534, 535, 541;
A. laevis, 541;
A. longicollis, 533;
A. longipes, 506, 534, 541;
A. magnirostris, 534, 541;
A. typhlops, 542;
A. uniunguiculata, 534
Ammotheidae, 534
Amopaum, 452
Ampharthrandria, 61
Amphascandria, 57
Amphion, 251
Amphipoda, 136 f.;
pelagic, 202;
fresh water, 211
Ampullaceal glands, 335, 349
Ampycini, 243
Ampyx, 231, 245;
A. roualti, 230
Anabiosis, in Tardigrada, 484
Analges, 455, 466
Analgesinae, 466
Ananteris, 306
Anaphia, 539
Anaspidacea, 115;
distribution, 211, 217
Anaspidae, 89
Anaspides, 115, 117;
relation to Schizopoda, 112;
 distribution, 211;
A. tasmaniae, 115, 116;
habitat, 211
Anaspididae, 115
Anelasma squalicola, 89
Anelasmocephalus, 452
Angelina, 247
Anisaspis bacillifera, 387
Anisopoda, 122
Anomalocera pattersoni, 60;
distribution, 202, 203
Anomopoda, 51
Anomorhynchus, 532
Anomura, 167;
relation to Thalassinidea, 167
Anoplodactylus, 511, 538;
A. lentus, 524;
A. neglectus, 539;
A. oculatus, 542;
A. petiolatus, 508, 510, 539, 541, 542;
A. virescens, 540, 542
Anopolenus, 247
Antarctic zone (marine), 200
Antarctica, evidence on, 200, 217
Antennae, of Crustacea, 5, 8;
of Phyllopoda, 24;
of Cladocera, 37;
of Copepoda, 55;
of Cirripedia, 81 f.;
of Ostracoda, 107;
of Malacostraca, 110;
of Anomura, 168;
 of Corystes cassivelaunus, 170, 183, 189;
used in respiration, 170;
of Trilobites, 237
Antennary gland, 13 (= green gland, q.v.)
Anthrobia, 406;
A. mammouthia, 334, 366
Anthura, 124
Anthuridae, 124
Ants and spiders, 370
Anyphaena accentuata, 397
Aphantochilinae, 414
Aphantochilus, 414
Apoda, 94
Apodidae, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 36, 241
Aponomma, 470
Appendages (incl. legs, limbs), of Crustacea, 7;
of Entomostraca, 18;
of Phyllopoda, 24;
of Cladocera, 40;
of Copepoda, 55;
of Cirripedia, 80 f.;
of Ostracoda, 107;
of Malacostraca, 110;
of Nebalia, 111;
of Eumalacostraca, 113;
of Anaspides, 115;
of Mysidacea, 118 f.;
of Cumacea, 120;
of Isopoda, 121 f.;
of Amphipoda, 136 f.;
of Stomatopoda, 142;
of Euphausiacea, 144 f.;
of Decapoda, 152;
 of Macrura, 153;
of their larvae, 159;
of Anomura, 167 f.;
of Birgus, 175;
of Brachyura, 181 f.;
alterations caused by parasites, 100 f.;
by hermaphroditism, 102 f.;
of Trilobita, 236, 237;
of Arachnida, 255 f.;
of Limulus, 262, 263;
of Eurypterus, 285 f.;
of Scorpions, 301, 303;
of Pedipalpi, 309;
of Spiders, 319;
of Palpigradi, 422;
of Solifugae, 426;
of Pseudoscorpions, 432;
of Podogona, 440;
of Phalangidea, 443;
of Acarina, 458;
of Tardigrada, 479;
of Pentastomida, 493;
of Pycnogons, 503 f.
Apseudes spinosus, 123
Apseudidae, 122
Apstein, 335
Apus, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 221, 242, 243;
segmentation, 6;
A. australiensis, 36;
A. cancriformis, 36;
habitat, 34
Arachnida, introduction to, 255;
segmentation of body, 255–6;
primitive, 256–7;
coxal glands, 257;
endosternite, 257;
sense-organs, 257;
 classification, 258
Araneae, 258, 314 f.
Araneida, 314
Araneina, 314
Araneus, 408 n.
Aratus pisonii, 195
Arbanitis, 388
Archaeolepas, 84;
A. redtenbacheri, 84
Archea, 411;
A. paradoxa, 383;
A. workmani, 411
Archeidae, 321, 411
Archisometrus, 306
Arctic zone, 199
Arcturidae, 127
Arcturus, 127
Arcyinae, 410
Arcys, 410
Arethusina, 223, 230, 251;
A. konincki, 250
Argas, 457, 469;
A. persicus, 469;
A. reflexus, 469
Argasidae, 469
Arges, 252
Argiope, 408;
A. aurelia, 340, 379;
A. bruennichi, 408;
A. cophinaria, 349, 365;
 A. trifasciata, 408
Argiopidae, 406 n.
Argiopinae, 408
Argulidae, 76
Argulus foliaceus, 77
Argyrodes, 402;
A. piraticum, 367;
A. trigonum, 367
Argyrodinae, 402
Argyroneta, 336, 415;
A. aquatica, 357, 415
Ariadna, 395
Ariamnes, 402;
A. flagellum, 318
Arionellus, 247
Aristaeus, 162;
A. crassipes, 159;
A. coruscans, phosphorescence, 151
Armadillidium, 129
Artema, 401
Artemia, 23, 24, 35;
A. fertilis, anal region, 23;
head, 26;
limb, 27;
A. salina, 23, 33, 36;
A. urmiana, 23
Arthrolycosa antiqua, 383
Arthropoda, 4;
segmentation, 7;
a natural group, 17
Arthrostraca, 121
Asagena, 404
Asaphellus, 249
Asaphidae, 249
Asaphini, 243
Asaphus, 222, 225, 227, 229, 235, 236, 249;
A. cornigerus, 227;
A. fallax, eye, 228;
A. kowalewskii, 227;
A. megistos, 236;
A. platycephalus, 236
Ascidicola rosea, 66
Ascidicolidae, 66
Asconiscidae, 130
Ascorhynchus, 505, 533;
A. abyssi, 506, 509, 519;
A. cryptopygius, 513 n.;
A. minutus, 517;
A. ramipes, 513 n.
Ascothoracica, 93
Asellidae, 128
Asellota, 127
Asellus, 127;
habitat, 209, 211;
A. aquaticus, 127, 209;
A. cavaticus, 209, 210;
A. forelii, 209
Aspidoecia, 76
Astacidae, 157;
distribution, 213, 216
Astacoides, 157;
distribution, 213
Astacopsis, 157;
 distribution, 213;
A. franklinii, 214
Astacus, 104, 157;
appendages, 10;
distribution, 213;
hermaphroditism, 104
Astacus gammarus (= Homarus vulgaris), 154
Asterocheres violaceus, 67
Asterocheridae, 67
Asterope oblonga, 108
Astia, 421;
A. vittata, 381
Astigmata, 465
Astridium, 540
Atax, 462, 472;
A. alticola, 472;
A. bonzi, 472
Atelecyclidae, 190
Atelecyclus, 191;
respiration, 189
Atops, 247
Attidae, 376, 381, 419
Attus, 421;
A. pubescens, 372, 421;
A. saltator, 372, 421
Atya, 163
Atyephyra, 163;
habitat, 210
Atyidae, 159, 163;
distribution, 212
Atypidae, 390
Atypoides, 391
Atypus, 391;
A. abboti, 356;
A. affinis, 356, 391;
A. beckii, 391
Auditory organ, of Anaspides, 116;
of Decapoda, 153;
of Mysidae, 119
Augaptilus filigerus, 59
Austrodecus glacialis, 535
Austroraptus polaris, 535
Autotomy, 155
Avicularia, 389
Aviculariidae, 316, 327, 386;
bite of, 365;
poisonous hairs of, 365
Aviculariinae, 389
Axial furrows, 223

Baglivi, 361
Baikal, Lake, Crustacea of, 212
Balanus, 91;
B. porcatus, shell, 90;
B. tintinnabulum, 91;
anatomy, 90
Ballus variegatus, 420
Barana, 506, 513, 533;
B. arenicola, 512, 513, 533;
B. castelli, 512, 513 n., 533
Barnacles, origin of term, 79
Barrande, J., on development of Trilobites, 238;
 on their classification, 243
Barrandia, 249
Barrois, 435 n.
Barrus, 429
Barychelinae, 389
Basse, on Tardigrada, 481
Baster, Job, 503
Bates, 373
Bathynomus giganteus, 126;
habitat, 205
Bathynotus, 247
Bathyphantes, 406
Bdella lignicola, 471
Bdellidae, 458, 471
Beecher, C. E., on facial sutures of Agnostus and Olenellus, 225;
on development of Trilobites, 238;
on their classification, 243
Beetle-mites, 467
Beetle-parasites, 470
Belinurus, 275, 279;
B. reginae, 278
Belisarius, 308
Belt, 368, 371
Beltina, 283 n.
Bernard, 311, 424, 426, 433 n., 434 n.
Bertkau, 323, 365, 395 n.
Beyrich, E., on facial suture of Trinucleus, 226
Billings, E., on appendages of Trilobites, 236
Bipolarity, 200
Birds and Spiders, 370
Birds’ feather Mites, 466
Birgus, 181;
B. latro, habits, 174;
structure, 175, 176
Black Corals, Cirripedia parasitic on, 93, 94
Blackwall, 348, 359 n., 365, 368, 385
Blindness, in Crustacea, 149, 209, 210;
in Spiders, 334
Blood, haemoglobin supposed in, 30, 68
Boas, on classification of Malacostraca, 113
Boeckella, distribution, 216
Boeckia, 138
Böhmia, 535
Bolocera, Pycnogonum with, 524
Bolyphantes, 406
Bomolochidae, 71
Bomolochus, 71, 72
Bon, 360
Bont-tick, 456
Boophilus, 456, 469;
B. australis, capitulum of, 468
Bopyridae, 130, 133
Bopyrina, 129, 130, 132
Bopyrus fougerouxi, 133;
male, 133;
adult female, 134
Bopyrus larva, of Bopyrina, 129, 133
Boreomysis, 120;
B. scyphops, distribution, 201
Boreonymphon, 536;
B. robustum, 506, 507, 511, 512, 542
Bosmina, 52, 53;
occurrence in Southern hemisphere, 216;
B. longirostris, habitat, 206
Bosminidae, 53;
appendages, 41;
alimentary canal, 42
Bothriuridae, 306, 308
Bothriurus, 308
Bouvier, 528 n.
Boys, 348, 360, 376
Brachybothrium, 391
Brachymetopus, 251
Brachythele, 390
Brachyura, 181;
eyes, 150
Branchiae (= gills) of Crustacea, 16;
of Decapoda, 152;
of Limulus, 269;
of Eurypterids, 288
Branchinecta, 25, 35;
B. paludosa, 35;
range, 34
Branchiopoda, 18 f.
Branchiopodopsis, 35;
B. hodgsoni, 35
Branchiostegite, 152
Branchipodidae, 19, 22, 35, 241