Conflicting discourses of welfare and justice characterised much of the twentieth and twenty-first century responses to girls and despite there being some ‘historical continuities’ in these responses, most prominently in relation to expectations relating to appropriate female behaviour, emanating from dominant discourses of femininity (Worrall and Gelsthorpe, 2009: 211), such responses have not been benign for girls. For example, policy and practice underpinned by welfarism ‘were closely tied to ideas about ‘’respectable’’ femininity’ (Sharpe and Gelsthorpe, 2009: 196) and are suggested to have acted as a ‘spurious justification for placing excessive restrictions on individual liberty particularly for girls’, most prominently due to concerns about ‘perceived sexual behaviour’ or ‘offending against the codes of adolescent femininity’ (Worrall and Gelsthorpe, 2009: 296). According to Hudson (1989: 197) ‘embedded at the heart of British welfare practices with adolescent girls was almost a psychic fear of predatory female sexuality’. Represented as a ‘protector discourse’, Hudson argued that welfarism for girls in the 20th century was driven by trepidation of troubled, sexually active girls who were not ‘possessed by any one male’ (ibid.: 296). The prevalence of welfarism during this period continued to reinforce girls’ unequal position within society by failing to address the legitimate needs of girls whilst at the same time devaluing their social status.
individual probation officers or social workers perceived suitable opportunities in the normal course of their casework’ [ 81 : 22]. Probation services have traditionally advocated for a “welfarist” understanding of reparation [ 8 : 267] linked with diver- sion, mitigation and offender re-education, combined with the ideas of penal min- imalism and ‘civilising’ criminal justice [ 14 , 52 , 131 ]. This view was injected at the heart of reparative initiatives for minor youth criminals in the 1980s [ 74 : 40], remaining a constant component of RJ as a diversionary intervention for youth offenders throughout the 1990s [ 29 ]. The main point here, is that probation agen- cies developed, between the early 1980s and the 1990s, a (youth) offender-focussed approach to RJ, promoting transformative reparation initiatives tailored on the offender’s needs, even though the victim did have a role as recipient of practical and symbolic reparation [ 84 : 39]. This perspective is overlapping with offender organi- sations’ understanding of (and advocacy for) RJ for young people. Particularly, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders’ report ‘Responsi- bility, Restoration and Reintegration: A New Three R’s for Young Offenders’ [ 100 ] has been recognised as one of the inspirations for the reparative measures introduced within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evi- dence Act 1999 [ 99 : 170]. Both perspectives were critical of the retributive approach to youth crime, defining reparation as a prosocial activity related to the offender’s responsibilisation (ending the ‘excuse culture’) and reintegration, more than to the victim’s needs [ 114 : 289]. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, whilst receiving those converging perspectives, ‘recontextualised’ [ 36 : 89] (and altered) probation’s original aims, by adding a num- ber of further elements, such as the ‘communitarian’ nature of reparation [ 135 ]; a contractual element in delivering justice [ 20 ] and an incipient attention to the crime victim as consumer of justice [ 50 ] In this (New Labour) context, emphasis is placed on the creation of community-based decision-making panels and on responsibilising contracts for (youth) offenders [ 20 ]. Additionally, increasing attention is paid to the crime victim’s involvement in the justice process [ 136 : 23.7]. Overall, it seems that the discourse of ‘active participation’ and responsibilisation of (youth) offenders through reparation are expressions of the partial incorporation of probation/offender organisations’ claims into New Labour flagship criminal laws in the late 1990s.
(Braithwaite, 1989; Walgrave and Aertsen, 1996). The basic claim here is that the disapproval of the criminal act within a frame of respect for the offender, terminated by rituals of forgiveness or acceptance, prevents reoffending. A certain moral psychology of the offender seems to permeate this discourse. The aim of reintegrative shaming is in fact to make offenders experience trauma from shame which derives from telling the story of the crime and listening to the victim. This trauma is handled (for instance through ‘the compass of shame’ (IIRP, 2007: 3)) and directed by the practitioners on the criminal act, enabling the offender to maintain a sense of worth and self-respect. This can be achieved by exposing her/him to the emotional views of those whom she/he most cares about (e.g. parents, partners and friends) (Hoyle, Young and Hill, 2002). At this point, once the trauma has been elicited, redirected and fashioned, the symbolic/material reparation can take place. This is also the moment when the offender is ‘asked’ to commit herself/himself to changing life, which obviously entails to avoid reoffending (Johnstone, 2011: 97). Avoiding reoffending is also said to depend on the meaningful involvement in the decision-making process and on the degree of genuine remorse experienced (RJ strategy 2003: 3.7). Conversely, re-offending seems implicitly linked to a lack of emotional understanding i.e. a mix of reduced empathy toward the victim and shortage of knowledge regarding the material effects of the crime and its aftermath (i.e. the harm). It is this lack which, if not properly “filled”, might facilitate re-offending in the future. At the same time, this finally achieved emotional understanding seems to be the main gain that the offender receives from partaking in RJ processes along with the possible reconciliation
Concerns about inconsistency in the severity of punishment associated with RJ can also be dealt with in a variety of ways, including judicial review (as in New Zealand) and good practice for insuring compliance with outcome agreements, as demonstrated by the Metropolitan and Northumbria police (see section 7). It can also be managed by Crown Prosecution Service oversight, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. These and many other solutions are possible if evidence continues to grow of the benefits to be gained from making RJ more widely available. That evidence, however, must distinguish between cases in which RJ is likely to work, have no effect, or even cause more crime. Reliance on evidence to decide when RJ is “appropriate” can yield very different decisions from relying on theory or subjective bias. One example is the usual proposal to limit the use of RJ to “lesser” crimes, including juvenile offences, but not to allow it for “serious” crimes. Yet the evidence suggests RJ may be most effective when the crimes are most serious. For minor crimes, RJ is no better than CJ in reducing repeat offending among shoplifters, drink-drivers, and teenage property offenders in Canberra. For major crimes RJ has succeeded better than CJ in reducing repeat offending among felony defendants in New York City, violent white people under 30 in Canberra, and violent white girls under 18 in Northumbria. Banning RJ for serious crimes would destroy the chance to prevent many thousands more such offences. Nor is it clear that there is any principled basis for selectively allowing, or banning, RJ – other than the principle of harm reduction, which indicates its use with serious crime.
Individual attitude changes, specifically increases in prosocial values, have also been documented. Students at Buxmont Academy demonstrated increased willingness to take responsibility and correspondingly were less apt to blame others for their delinquent actions (Mirsky & Wachtel, 2007). They were also more likely to have positive regard for law enforcement officers and high self-esteem scores. Further, these measures were even more positively developed in students who continued into a second year of the program. A 2005 study on VOM indicated that restorative processes contributed to a 26% decrease in recidivism (Bradshaw & Roseborough). Data collected from students at Buxmont Academy solidified this claim; students who participated in the program for at least 3 months were less likely to recidivate, with each additional week in the program adding an additional decrease. The largest decrease occurred between 4 and 6 months, and ultimately rates of re-offending reduced by two-thirds over six months (Mirsky & Wachtel, 2007) . This suggests that participating in a restorative process may also affect the offender’s behavior in the long-run.
Most victims claim to be satisfied with the way their case was dealt with by the justice system. For the victims in the conferencing group this percentage was 63%; for the victims whose cases were dealt with by the courts this percentage was 54%. The observed difference between groups was not statistically significant. However, Strang (2000) repeated this analysis using only those victims whose cases were treated as they had been assigned. Based on this smaller group, Strang reported that 72% of the victims in the conference group versus 50% of the court group said they were satisfied with the way the system dealt with their case. This time the difference between groups was statistically significant (p < .01). An important question is whether or not one should use the smaller group of cases in which conferencing actually took place or the larger (assigned) groups. Strang argued that the smaller group gives a more accurate picture of what really happened. Indeed, the actual experiences of victims is important to understand and interpret the findings. Here, it seems that victims whose cases were assigned to conferencing, but in the end did not result in a conference, were more critical of how their case was dealt with. Restorativejustice programs are usually voluntary; therefore, there will always be cases in which the victims and/or the offenders choose not to
This Article addresses the increasing formal legal nature of restorativejustice in the United States. Over the last three decades, a substantial body of research has demonstrated the ways in which restorativejustice offers an alternative societal response to crime and harm. It has also examined how restorativejustice empowers individuals and groups to address violence, respond to social, political and economic injustice, and engage in resistance to existing structural inequities. Yet a prominent gap in the field exists: a comprehensive theoretical and empirical examination of the codification of restorativejustice in state law. Studies of this nature are essential given restorative justice’s proliferation in formal law, as well as operationalization within multiple public systems. Drawing on data from an original 50-state analysis, this Article argues that the current degree of legal internalization of restorativejustice indicates the emergence of a new legal norm. These findings call for a critical reexamination of current perceptions of restorativejustice normatively and empirically. Beyond provoking new directions in research, these findings should be of significant interest to reformists seeking to advance laws, policies, and systems that promote fairness, equity, and justice and to practitioners who increasingly interact with formal restorative processes. The internalization and diffusion of restorativejustice in state law has heightened the need for judges, attorneys, and advocates to not only understand restorativejustice theoretically, but pragmatically as they must now make decisions regarding the use of restorativejustice at different stages of legal processes.
While reducing reoffending is not the only goal of restorativejustice, it is critical to be confident that restorativejustice does not lead to increase in reoffending. Reducing recidivism is anticipated as an outcome due to the engagement of informal social controls through the inclusion of family, supporters and community representatives (Nielsen, 1999) and the impact of meeting one’s victim face to face (Siddiqui, 1995). Informal social control is widely believed to influence offending. Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory was grounded in the belief that bonds with prosaically values, people and institutions prevent people from engaging in criminal behavior. The social bonds required to prevent rule-breaking are achieved through four elements commitments, attachments, involvements and beliefs. In essence, the poor opinion that friends and families may have of an individual’s deviant behavior has the effect of inhibiting rule-breaking. Once offending has taken place, Braswell (2014) posits that reiterative shaming inhibits further offending.
Summary This meta-analysis took a sample of 35 studies in North America (27 VOM programmes and 8 FGC programmes) that looked into recidivism rates, victim and offender satisfaction, and restitution completion. Each of the studies used control groups to measure the outcomes. 72 per cent of studies reported a decrease in recidivism rates – the mean decrease of all studies reviewed was 7 per cent. However, it is to be noted that this study illustrates the highly variable nature of RJ programme effects on recidivism. While some programmes reduced re- offending by as much as 38 per cent, others led to increases in re-offending by up to 23 per cent.
There is a pressing need for more and better research on RJ. There are obvious difficulties in conducting randomized controlled trials with criminal sanctions, but RCTs are not the only reliable way of estimating treatment effects. Instrumental variable methods and propensity score analysis are well-regarded alternatives. Only one study to date, however, has employed propensity score matching, despite its superiority to conventional regression methods in assessing treatment effectiveness (Apel and Sweeten 2010). No studies have employed instrumental variable techniques to get around the problem of omitted variable bias. It is also worth noting that little account has been paid to differences in remorse between treatment and control groups, even though remorse is known to be associated with lower rates of re-offending after controlling for age, race, offence and prior criminal record (Hayes and Daly 2003).
Chicago Public Schools Policy
• Since 2006–2007, the Chicago Public Schools Student Code of
Conduct reflects “a comprehensive approach to student
discipline and include[s] components of restorativejustice, alternatives to out-of-school suspension, and additional
Another limitation is while logit regression allows researchers to assess prediction ability of a number of variables, the statistical test does not determine if relationships are present among the variables. Other limitations include five possible threats to internal validity. First, it is presumed respondents considered a generic offender, victim, and community members; however, one must consider current media trends. The case of Casey Anthony may then create a history threat to the findings of this study. A second potential threat to internal validity is maturation; how participants responded to questions may simply be a reflection of their maturity level rather than educational level. A third threat to internal validity could be additional variables (such as culture) which influence respondents’ perceptions of restorativejustice. Selection bias could also pose a fourth threat to internal validity because respondents who possess an awareness of restorativejustice may be more likely to volunteer as participants than individuals unaware of the concept. Lastly, additive and interactive effects may have occurred during this study. Threats to internal validity may have combined in numerous manners to suggest a relationship between independent and dependent variables when one was not present.
For the 2003 wave of the OCJS, Home Office researchers carried out a validation exercise to compare OCJS offence estimates with British Crime Survey (BCS) crime estimates. There are difficulties in making comparisons because the OCJS includes offences against commercial and public bodies, offences against children and drug dealing, unlike the BCS, and any OCJS estimates of individual instances of offending will always be higher than the BCS count of the number of crime events because more than one offender can be involved in a single crime. As a result, the validation exercise included adjustments to restrict the OCJS to a sub-set of offences most comparable to those in the BCS and to compensate for co-offending. The results of the exercise suggested that both sources gave similar counts of violent crime. However, the OCJS appeared to undercount comparable property crime relative to the BCS. This is likely to be because the highest-rate offenders are under-represented in the OCJS sample and are responsible for a considerable proportion of crimes reported to the BCS. Evidence from surveys of convicted offenders shows that their rates of property offending greatly exceed rates of violent offending (Budd, T. et al., 2005b).
There are of course a number of pitfalls attached to the implementation of restorative practices and these in turn can lead to attacks from critiques. Lack of willingness on the part of many to participate, as well as over inflated expectations of remedy, continue to dog many of the practitioners and their projects. For example Glenmona Resource Centre cited difficulties for staff to accept that they should not call the police when an incident occurred, and the PSNI similarly cited time-constraints in getting officers involved. The degree to which interventions could be perceived as voluntary also caused concern. NI Alternatives questioned ‘how voluntary is voluntary’, 23 particularly where, as in their work, the person is often with them to avoid a punishment beating. However, they have found that quite quickly the person can ‘realise that this is not us trying to scapegoat them or trying to punish them but a process that will try and help make positive changes.’ Continued, training and professionalization of staff, education of communities and preparation of participants have assisted in ensuring that these potential pitfalls are overcome and best practice is achieved (Roche, 2003). What is perhaps interesting is that irrespective of the operating context – the criminal justice system, schools, homes or communities moving from paramilitary influence, these problems and the ways to overcome them appear largely the same. These experiences are essential ‘normal’, although stark differences exist in terms of the legal and financial contexts which have substantial bearings on how they can operate.
The message that this paper wish to communicate to all cultures (especially the African cultures) is that in the world of the twenty- first century, we are more likely to find our restorative traditions a more valuable resource than our retributive traditions. Even sadly though, the hegemonic cultural forces in the contemporary world communicate just the opposite message. The knowledge we need to learn is what has being the status quo in African traditions for dispute resolution? This Afro-historical knowledge is imperative because according to an Italian philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC- 43 BC), ‘not to know what happened before one was born is to remain a child forever’. So examining justice in history as per the idea of restorativejustice will offer a backdrop for our understanding of the concept and its metamorphosis. An historical review of restorativejustice might also help us to understand what factors influenced the move away from restorativejustice in favour of the criminal justice model and why we might in the recent times want to move back towards this model of justice in our current social context globally.
Accordingly, this study explores both the detail of force policies and the experiences of various actors who were involved in restorative policing in different capacities. The conceptual ambiguity of RJ requires those who make, implement or apply policies to devise their own understanding of the subject as they put it into practice. As Garland (2001) noted, RJ sits among the many recent justice developments which do not clearly fall within a discrete ideological category. This can be confusing for policymakers and practitioners who attempt to interpret and locate RJ within their existing traditions and understandings (Boutellier, 2006). When a force implements RJ, senior leaders, managers and officers are required to engage in a hermeneutical process, in which they determine, for themselves, what RJ means, who it is for and what they consider to be its purpose. Their answers to these questions will necessarily reflect, to varying degrees, the organisational structures in which they work, the situational factors which contextualise their work and their individual values and attitudes (Murray, 2012). Thus, a methodological strategy which focuses on these actors’ ‘perceptions, feelings, and lived experiences’ (Guest, et al., 2012: 13) is appropriate for understanding how and why decisions pertaining to RJ are made, and assessing how these decisions may be affected by the institutional context.
The RJ argument is that the state has failed in its bid to solve or even manage the crisis of criminality which continues to run amok in most capitalist social formations, and now needs to hand it over to those who can. In this regard, RJ seeks to bring to criminal justice a remedy of the order which neo- liberalism purportedly has brought to the economy. A crucial feature of this remedy is the transfer of hitherto public assets to the private sector, and the import of the principles of the market into existing state institutions. Adherents of RJ seek to sever the link between the state and criminal justice. They wish to remove criminal conflicts from the public sphere and reconstruct them according to the precepts of the private sector. They are convinced, more or less, that it is the entrepreneurial spirit which holds the answer to the world- wide crisis of criminality. They are the free-marketeers of the criminal justice system.
This book is an effort to articulate the restorative jus- tice concept in straightforward terms. However, I must acknowledge certain limits to the framework I will lay out here. I am often considered one of the founding de- velopers and advocates of this field. Even though I have tried hard to remain critical and open, I come with bias in favor of this ideal. Moreover, in spite of all efforts to the contrary, I write from my own “lens,” and that is shaped by who I am: a white, middle-class male of Eu- ropean ancestry, a Christian, a Mennonite. This biogra- phy and these, as well as other, interests necessarily shape my voice and vision.
Restorative Justice University of Huddersfield Repository Jones, Adele Restorative Justice in Caribbean Contexts Original Citation Jones, Adele (2007) Restorative Justice in Caribbean Contexts In Movi[.]