Restorative Justice

Question 1

What is restorative justice according to the Restorative Justice Council (2016)? What are the issues with it?

Answer 1

“Those harmed by crime or conflict and those responsible for the harm into communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward.”

Most widely used definition in the UK.
Captures wider contexts.

This is not specific to CJS context, it may or may not involve the direct victim, it does not identify the outcomes. It would suggest that community service is not restorative justice because there is no direct victim, even though the community as a whole is the victim.

Question 2

How does Marshall (1999) define restorative justice?

Answer 2

“RJ is 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”.

This is the most popular definition. It acknowledges the community impact and all who are affected.

Nobody has come up with a unanimously accepted definition.

Question 3

What are the main objectives of RJ?

Answer 3

Repair and restore relationships between the community and the offender

Offer rehabilitation

Reintegrate the offender into society

Gives the offender an opportunity to take accountability

Develop ways in which the offender can pay for what they have done

Reduce reoffending

Give the victims closure

Avoid worsening the situation and relationships

Victim empowerment

Communication between the offender and victim

Question 4

What are the different names and definitions used for restorative justice?

Answer 4

Relational justice
Positive justice
Reintegration justice (community and reintegration)
Restorative punishment (meant to be non-punitive but some scholars come up with this term which seems contradictory)
Conflict resolution

Question 5

Where can restorative justice be used?

Answer 5

Education: secondary schools, conflict resolution

Work: NHS restorative just-cultures

Restorative parenting: parenting teenagers, negotiated styles, less control

Energy: the victim is also nature (see the references)

Question 6

When can restorative justice be used?

Answer 6

At any point from admitting guilt however, if offences are serious, it takes time for it to be applied.

Question 7

What are the different formats that restorative justice can look like?

Answer 7

Face-to-face mediation, shuttle mediation, writing a letter of apology, paying fines.

Question 8

How has restorative justice developed?

Answer 8

It has historical indigenous roots where self-sufficient communities who dealt with disputes for survival-based reasons made use of a type of RJ.

Evidence of the very first form of RJ comes from The ‘Elmira Experiment’ where two friends on drinking binge, creating havoc in the community. There were 22 victims and the probation officer conducted the Elmira Experiment where Ross Kelly had to knock on each victim’s door, explaining his behaviour. It became a landmark case which led to RJ to being adopted by many countries.

It has led to the concept of reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989).

It has also led to the emergence of the ‘victims movement’ where “the victim has moved from being the ‘forgotten actor’ to key player in the criminal justice process’ (Walklate, 2007:8).

Some call for the CJS to be abolished and replaced with RJ.

In New Zealand, Maori people were disproportionately represented and feelings of injustice led to RJ developments (family group conferencing) and led to fewer people going to prisons (Liebmann, 2007).

In the UK, Thames Valley Police led the way to restorative justice policing.

Restorative justice is therefore now a flexible and widespread tool.

Question 9

What are the 6 key principles underpinning restorative justice?

Answer 9

Restoration

Voluntarism (informed voluntary consent)

Neutrality (complete, unbiased information with no one party allowed to dominate)

Safety of all (includes confidentiality)

Accessibility

Respect/equal concern for all (human dignity)

Question 10

How does the victim code ensure victims have access to restorative justice?

Answer 10

The Code sets out the minimum standards and entitlements that must be provided to victims of crime by organisations. Victims have the right to receive information and services where offenders and victims can meet. If the offender is an adult, victims have the right to receive information about RJ and how to access it. If the offender is under 18, victims have the right to receive information about Restorative Justice from the Youth Offending Team.

Although the police are responsible for providing victims with information initially, all service providers must consider whether victims would benefit from it at any stage of the criminal justice process.

Question 11

What are the benefits of restorative justice for victims?

Answer 11

See offenders as rational humans, not stereotypes. Generate feelings of empathy. Victim satisfaction and closure. Victims can overcome trauma. Restorative justice is more informal so it is easier for them to understand. Their needs are acknowledged. Reduces fear of re-victimisation.

Question 12

What are the benefits of RJ for offenders?

Answer 12

Seen as a rational human being, not a stereotype. Reduces negative impacts of labelling. Offers them a chance to take accountability and own up to what they have done and the imapcts fo their actions. Allows them a way to repay for their actions. Reduces reoffending and an opportunity for a reduced sentence.

Question 13

What are the benefits of restorative justice for the community and state?

Answer 13

Reduction in costs in running prisons, reduces the incarcerated population. Potentially a tougher approach as the offender has to deal with the psychological and emotional realisation of what they have done. Brings communities together, strengthening bonds.

Question 14

What are the limits of restorative justice?

Answer 14

Used in some shape or form by most police forces in England and Wales (Shewan, 2010) and Paterson and Clamp (2015) but there is a ‘post-code lottery’ (Acton, 2015) compounded by funding arrangements
Mostly established in the youth justice system for low-level offences by young people as a diversionary mechanism i.e. part of an early intervention focus directed at those at the cusp of their criminal careers
Evidence that it is most effective with more serious offences (Shapland et al, 2007)
Outcomes: Hallam (2015:5) – her 4 victims said that they felt: ‘more at ease’ ‘less dragged down’, ‘better in myself’ ‘no longer scared or worried’ and ‘the book has been closed

Question 15

What are the limits of restorative justice for the victims?

Answer 15

Participation could make things worse. Does not address power imbalances. Victims may feel coerced. Secondary victimisation. Engaging in RJ is too simplistic to address grief and loss. Some victims use restorative justice to enforce punitive punishments which defeats the rehabilitative nature of restorative justice. Some victims don’t know the differences between restorative justice and criminal justice, assume that they are the same thing and there is lots of overlap between them which results in the victims taking on a legal role, feel inclined to give offenders an appropriate level punishment which abuses the power they are given to decide appropriate methods that will be beneficial for the offender and wider community. Leads to unequal power relationships, victims are likely to be highly participating and can be hostile. Very emotional and traumatic. Doesn’t guarantee satisfaction, victims often expect that it will make all their problems go away.

Prevalent belief that RJ is restricted to minor offences by youths; not deemed appropriate for serious crime, organized crime, sexual crimes, corporate crimes (lots of victims). Post-code lottery of implementation is at play. The concept of inclusive, supportive communities is problematic; eliciting the support and challenge of a community is challenging. Lack of facilitator expertise/skills and resources necessary to secure effective implementation. Difficult to get wider parties involved with the restorative procedure, especially if an intimate violence crime has been committed. May be that the community they were initially part of, encouraged their crime so, is reintegrating them back into this setting appropriate? Marshall (1999: 8) “Communities are not as integrated as they once were”, society is full of divisions and different groups with differing beliefs about what should be done to the offender.

You can never be sure that the offender is only engaging in RJ, solely to reduce their sentence instead of taking accountability which is counterproductive in terms of reducing reoffending rates.

Question 16

What types of restorative justice is there?

Answer 16

Types come from Newburn (2017) where he cites the main types from Crawford and Newburn (2003).

Victim-offender mediation

Conferencing - Involves a mediator and other wider individuals involved such as their family, informal nature, emphasis on accountability, discussions of what the next plan is, encourage forgiveness and discussion over what happened.

Sentencing circles - Involves entire communities and wider individuals, where mediator uses a ‘talking piece’ which symbolises that the person holding it can only speak. This can be subdivided into healing circles (more indigenously rooted, address causes in a societal context, communities are responsible for helping the offender) and sentencing circles (the community is involved in deciding sentence).

Citizen’s panels and community boards - Involves problem solving and continued ‘peace making’ where members are central in determining what happens to the offender and what will help them.

Integrative shaming

Question 17

What are the main differences between the criminal justice system and the restorative justice system?

Answer 17

Restorative justice has grown out of the critiques of the criminal justice system.

Mainstream criminal justice typically focuses on stopping crime there an then, resulting in punitive methods of punishment such as incarceration whereas RJ takes a rehabilitative approach that aims to reduce the risk of reoffending,

The needs of the victim are not addressed in the CJS. Victims are the most affected by crime yet, are the least involved within the courts whereas in RJ, it focuses on the needs of the victim, ensuring they have access to support and closure.

The offender is heavily focused upon which can have detrimental impacts on the victim’s mental health, wellbeing and relationships with others and society but in RJ, the victim can recommend the appropriate support, education and help which is needed for the offender to help them reintegrate into society.

The CJS doesn’t effectively address reoffending whereas RJ does by encouraging responsibility and offering ways to change the offender’s behaviour.

Offenders are unlikely to take accountability for their actions however, in RJ, responsibility is one of the main requirements.

The CJS is more formal and organized, which leads to labelling but RJ can avoid this, allowing them to be seen as a rational human. Any labels are utilised positively to allow reintegration. The act is labelled as bad but the offender is not (reintegrative shaming, Braithwaite).

Criminals have no choice but to engage with the CJS but in RJ they do, it is voluntary.

The CJS is responsible for secondary harm in terms of reoffending and not having the sense of justice achieved. RJ overcomes this.

CJS is a cheaper alternative that is not necessarily a financial burden on the government due to the one-size-fits all approach however, RJ is. It requires highly trained staff and lots of time and money which is already limited in the judicial system. Prisons are ultimately cheaper to run in comparison to restorative justice schemes.

All offenders and victims have access to the CJS but not all do to RJ (post-code lottery).

Question 18

What are the reparations available as a result of RJ?

Answer 18

Financial reimbursement, education, courses, physical repairs to damage, community service, understanding, answers and explanations.

Question 19

What is serious and organised crime?

Answer 19

Literature suggests that SOC is difficult to define. There are lots of different ways to do so. Some definitions identify the ‘group’ aspect of it but such simple definitions allow the police to identify a wide variety of crimes as SOC (net widening and incorrect classifications of crime). The way it is defined, generates attention in terms of how things are resourced e.g. government gives this area more funding. The legal definition is criticised for not addressing the victim.

Question 20

Is restorative justice appropriate for serious and organised crime?

Question 21

What did Nikki D’Souza do?

Answer 21

Mainly qualitative mixed methods approach using surveys and interviews with various experts, national police officers, SOC offenders and victims.

Many forces responded and unanimously confirmed they used restorative justice but not within the context of SOC.

Question 22

How did experts view the case of using restorative justice in SOC?

Answer 22

Some questioned why aren’t we doing it? Every victim deserves chance if affected by SOC. Some suggested that the police may be referring SOC cases to RJ practitioners but were not revealing their SOC status because of intelligence violations. Thoughts that RJ is only suitable for young people, low level offending, not SOC e.g. trafficking. Many thought it would cause more harm than good however, some were keen to pursue RJ in SOC though this was very much a minority. Some thought it was a preposterous idea.

Question 23

Why has RJ not been tried in a SOC setting?

Answer 23

If someone was suitable, there is no legal way to refer them. The nature of SOC has very vulnerable victims. Because of the lives the offenders have experienced, they are victims too and RJ definitions require a harmed person and a harmer which is difficult to distinguish between. SOC offending is risky and deals with vulnerable individuals.

Question 24

What did Nikki D’Souza find?

Answer 24

Nearly 60% of senior police leaders were keen to use RJ in SOC settings, but over a quarter of middle managers were. 12% of senior leaders opposed it but over a fifth of middle managers did. (Senior leaders typically have more power).

Question 25

What did the offenders say about RJ in a SOC context?

Answer 25

None of the offenders recalled having been offered RJ in the past. They believed that if they had, it would have helped address some of the problems they experienced as a result of their offending encouraging them to reflect and break the cycle of offending.

Criminogenic needs refers to a need that leads a way to criminality e.g, homelessness, meeting victims could have been a trigger event to stopping criminogenic needs.

Question 26

What did victims say about using SOC in a RJ context?

Answer 26

Many were worried about interventions and whether it won’t work, but then prison is arguably not working as well (do victims have the perception that prison is working?).

Some suggested that it would allow them to find answers to only their offenders would know such as why they were specifically targeted.

Many victims experience lots of self-blame due to the high profile of fraud and awareness about it. They feel guilty themselves for falling into the trap of bogus tradesman and people claiming to be the police to gain access to their finances and material goods.

Question 27

What was found through the fraud case studies?

Answer 27

Many initially volunteered to take part but there was a high fall out rate after conversing with social networks. Conferences were used but in some cases, they were delayed as the prisoner kept getting moved from prison to prison because there was always a price on his head so by time the preparation stage was done, he was moved again and the process had to be repeated. The victim had to travel a lot and it took 2 years for RJ to go ahead. The victim was elderly and ill, didn’t trust anyone, very traumatised and the offender was very cocky but on the day, he was very nervous, didn’t realise his feelings were going to be like this, didn’t know which victim would walk through the door. RJ in a SOC context allowed the humanisation of victims and offenders. Self-beliefs changed throughout the preparation stages.

Question 28

How is RJ in a SOC context different to its use in other crimes?

Answer 28

There are more risk considerations, RJ can put victim safety in jeopardy due to power imbalances. Risks come from many different angles e.g. there are many SOC members who are still out there and part of the group, risk kept changing and too much info can compromise other SOC investigations by the police.

There are complexities arising from SOC context e.g. there are multiple offenders or victims dispersed geographically.

There are long preparation phases. It needs lots of resources. One victim felt that he didn’t need to meet the offender because the long prep stage gave him closure.

Need for experienced facilitators with knowledge of SOC and RJ.

Access – organised crime groups have networks all over the entire world. Can be difficult to access all members and engaged in RJ.

Conferences are not initially wanted. Many victims start with letters which gives them closure this way.

Lots of different needs that needed to be met due to the network of SOC and the numerous victims often involved.

Question 29

What are the implications of Nikki D’Souza’s findings?

Answer 29

If referrals aren’t made, practitioners can’t know whether the offenders are members of SOC groups. There are lots of missed opportunities to prevent SOC through the use of RJ.

Views regarding the use of RJ in SOC contexts are still very polarised.

In SOC contexts, there is more of a focus on catch and convict rather than victims needs.

RJ in SOC contexts can be very expensive as staff need to be trained in vulnerability and RJ (vulnerability is the centre of county lines).