NOTE: as an alternative? Pre-sentencing? Part of rehab? S&S type? Police?

What is Restorative Justice?

Bringing victims and offenders “into communication” to repair the harm and find a “positive way forward” (definition by Restorative Justice Council)
Informal resolutions by police, formal RJ conferences (face-to-face facilitated meetings)
- Less research on the effectiveness of informal resolutions
- Might be applied inconsistently

Use of RJ

Police forces
- RJ approaches (especially informal resolutions) increased from 0.5% to 12% of case disposals between 2008 and 2011
- BUT large variations in how these were implemented (including training available)
- ISSUE: not subject to external security
  - 14 out of 16 cases were inappropriate (V didn’t consent or not a criminal offence)
  - Parties not always properly advised on status of informal resolution
  - Police officers should focus on visible policing and responding to calls, restorative conferences should be organised by volunteers?
RJ Conferences
- Best chance of success when well-organised and simple to follow
- For offenders in custody, release on temporary licence (ROTL) might be required for RJ conferences to be held outside prison
Used by YOTs, but less so by probations and prisons since no clear NOMS guidance

Benefits

Victims: high levels of satisfaction
Offenders: reflecting on offending
Public: more support for use with young offenders, possibility of informal resolutions helping to reduce bureaucracy and delay

S79: Referral Orders

Referral to Youth Offender Panel
- Offender and YOP will come up with a programme to address offending behaviour
- Can include requirements relating to reparation and restorative justice
- In the event of non-compliance or refusal to agree to a contract, offender will be referred back to Court

Sch 16 Para 5: Deferred sentences to allow Restorative Justice

Adds s1ZA to PCC(S)A 2000
Court can defer sentence for 6 months and impose RJ requirement
- Requires consent of offender and victim(s)
- “aims to maximise the offender’s awareness of the impact of the offending concerned on the victims” and “gives an opportunity to a victim or victims to talk about, or by other means express experience of, the offending and its impact”

S15: introduce availability of a “rehabilitation activity requirement” as part of a community order or suspended sentence order

Can be required to participate in specified activities or go to a specified place
- E.g. activities forming an accredited programme or activities whose purpose is reparative
- Explicitly includes “restorative justice activities”

Study	Type	Findings
South Australia Juvenile Justice Project (1999) (Daly)	Interviews with victims and offenders post-RJC	Most coordinators and police officers felt there was a high degree of “restorativeness” and “democratic process” Different possible aims: deterrence/compensation vs remorse/forgiveness Positive effects on young offenders
RISE (Sherman and Strang, 2000)	Canberra Reintegrative Shaming (police run conferences) Experiments (based on Braithwaithe’s reintegrative shaming theory), used as diversionary alternative to Court	Youth violence: 38 fewer offences per year per 100 offenders Drink driving: 4 more offences per year per 100 offenders Results showed clear effects for violent offenders, but may not work for other types of offences
Youth Conferencing as Shame Management: Results of a Long-term Follow-Up Study Maruna, 2007	Interviews with small sample (26) of young people who went thru North Ireland Youth Conferencing Service	findings are ‘treated cautiously and sweeping generalisations are avoided’ Most post-conference outcomes are Positive self-reported conferencing experiences were so negative that they might have exacerbated the young person’s problems through either labelling or provoking defiance. frustrating experiences described were those conferences that resulted in a conference plan that was later rejected by the courts most of those who avoided offending entirely after the conference had not been involved in much serious delinquency prior to the conference itself, and many were first-time offenders, arguable that they would have desisted regardless of conferencing experience.
Sherman and Strang (Smith Institute, 2007)	Review of research in UK and abroad Broad definition: Includes RJC, restitution, reparation.	RJ substantially reduced offending for some offenders (but not all) More effective for serious offending (especially violent offences) Benefits for victims (especially for RJC) Reduced PTSD, desire for revenge Increased satisfaction Reduced costs when used as diversion Reduced recidivism
Shapland (2007)	7 million, 7 year research programme funded by government, looked at RCTs involving serious offences (robbery, burglary and violent offences)	Majority of victims chose to participate 85% of victim participants were satisfied Reduced frequency of re-offending 9 savings for every 1 spent
Robinson and Shapland (2008)	Evaluation of 3 restorative justice schemes in England and Wales under HO’s “Crime Reduction Programme”	RJ helps to consolidate the offender’s decision to desist (Provides social/human capital for reintegration and desistance Victims are also interested in reducing offender’s recidivism Offender’s welfare and victim’s needs is not a zero-sum game
Matrix Analysis (2009)	Independent expert analysis of RCJ economic benefits	Suggests that diverting young offenders from community orders to pre-court RJC would produce savings of 7,050 per offender Costs would be recovered within 1 year and bring net benefit of >1 billion over 10 years
Restorative Youth Justice in Northern Ireland (2009) Jacobson and Gibbs	examines recent youth justice reform in Northern Ireland, focussing particularly on the operation and outcomes of the Youth Conference Service, which is part of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland Criticised by Goldson (2011) for being methododically suspect and small sample size	Northern Ireland Office overall one-year reoffending rate for the 2006 youth cohort to be 41.8%. The figure for those released from custody is 70.7%, compared to 52.1% for community-based sanctions Youth conferencing is associated with a lower level of reoffending than other community based disposals, with a reoffending rate of 37.7%, 89% expressed satisfaction with the conference outcome, and 90% said they would recommend it to a friend
Sheffield Community Justice Panel Project (Sheffield Hallam Uni, 2010)	Research comparing community mediation (RJ using volunteers) and interventions by statutory agencies	Community mediation could cost between 160-430 LA intervention could cost 1,240 (e.g. going to Court for an injunction
Shewan (ACPO, 2010)	Survey of police forces	33 out of 38 responding police forces were using RJ practices Favourable response from police on RJ and Community Resolution (increase transparaency, decreased costs) in helping to improve victim satisfaction and reduce re-offending
Meadows (Sheffield Hallam Uni, 2012)	Evaluation of South Yorkshire Restorative Justice Programme (small scale review)	Favourable reoffending rates amongst the 29 offenders BUT not statistically significant
Campbell Review (Sherman and Strang, 2013)	Meta-analysis of worldwide research projects (10 RCT studies over 3 continents) NOTE: all the participating offenders had already CONSENTED to RJ, even if they weren’t later assigned NOTE: SPECIFIC TYPE of RJ in the form of RJC	UK studies showed high cost-effectiveness (8x more benefit) 14x as much benefit in London of crime costs prevented vs running costs of RJC (NOTE: didn’t include start-up cost) 9/10 experiments showed some decrease in reoffending over 2 years BUT only 1 had a statistically significant decrease Sherman & Strang: average effect means it is less likely to have been by chance RJCs without consent “are arguably unethical and breach...

#15031 - Restorative Justice - Criminology

About Oxbridge

More Criminology Samples