Restorative Justice

Question 1

What did Nils Christie suggest?

Answer 1

The problem is victims aren’t part of proceedings with makes them not only victims of an offence but victims of the system

Question 2

Defining RJ

Answer 2

• different way of thinking
• focuses on harm caused
• requires offender to take responsibility, redress, recompensate and reintegrate
• cooperation between community and government

Question 3

Marshall’s definition of RJ

Answer 3

RJ is a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future

Question 4

Zehr

Answer 4

views crime as a violation of people and relationships

• repair, reconciliation and reassurance
• should be principles in finding solutions

Question 5

Umbreit

Answer 5

views crime as harm to individuals and communities- so they should be the ones to play a part in finding a solution
-restoration is far more important than punishment

Question 6

Who is involved in RJ?

Answer 6

• victim
• community
• offender

Question 7

Crime & Courts Act (2003)

Answer 7

statute giving effect to RJ for the first time through Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Question 8

Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Answer 8

defer sentence to see if some form of RJ will work

Question 9

A commitment to RJ?

Answer 9

UK- justice for all and strategy for RJ
UN- draft declaration of principles
EU framework decision (2001) and victims directive (2012)

Question 10

EU Victims Directive (2012)- Article 10

Answer 10

1. each member state will seek to promote mediation in criminal cases for offences which it considers appropriate
2. Each member state shall ensure that any agreement between the victim and offender reached in the course of such mediation can be taken into account

Question 11

EU Victims Directive (2012)- Article 11

Answer 11

safeguards for RJ provision in member states

Question 12

EU Victims Directive (2012)- Article 17

Answer 12

each member state must put into place laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with framework decision

Question 13

Victim & Offender Mediation

Answer 13

• family group conferencing
• restorative warning conference
• referral order panel
• sentencing circles

Question 14

Community Justice Panels

Answer 14

ASB & Crime
voluntary
O must admit
V & O both have support
structured discussion
reach agreement on resolving problems
Community justice panel agreement (CJPA) signed at the end

Question 15

Youth Restorative Disposals (YRDs)

Answer 15

supported through CDA(1998) and YJ and Crim.Ev Act (1999)

Aim= diversion as diverts young people from the CJS

Question 16

Socio-legal Issues

Answer 16

• rights v responsibilities
• self interest of others could threaten our rights
• assume adversarial approach protects individual rights
• norms V values- does RJ express violation of norms
• fairness and justice- not same due process that’s involved in CJS
• discretion- investment for all parties

Question 17

Umbreit et al (1994) Post-mediation understanding of fairness

Answer 17

Victims
-provide help for offender
-pay back for losses
-receive an apology
Offenders
-paying back for losses
-personally 'making things right'
-offer apology

Question 18

Legal Issues

Answer 18

Due Process- right of presumption of innocence, right to fair trial, right to counsel
Equal protection- balance?
victims rights- balance?
proportionality- RJ allows different demands made on different offenders for same crime

Question 19

Systemic Issues

Answer 19

Implementation
Modelling
Dual track- RJ and CJ exist separately
Net widening- catches those who wouldn’t have come into contact with CJS

Question 20

RJ & Sentencing

Answer 20

Referral orders- CJA (2003)
Personalised justice
consistency and proportionality?
Human rights- Art 6 right to fair trial

Question 21

Why be wary of evaluations of RJ?

Answer 21

• difficult to measure good practice
• variables being examined differ
• disagreement over recidivism
• small scale studies

Question 22

New Zealand Court Referred RJ Pilot

Answer 22

Offenders with certain characteristics who attended a conference had significantly lower reconviction rates relative to control (violent, traffic, theft, males, ages 25-29 and 30-39, medium to high risk offenders)

Question 23

Hoyle, Young & Hill (2002)

Answer 23

• police cautions delivered in conference with/without victim present- is this RJ?
• compared self-report offending in 12 month prior and post conference
• 25% of offenders desisted or reduced offending

Question 24

Sherman, Strang & Woods RISE (recidivism patterns in Canberra reintegrative shaming experiment)

Answer 24

• sample of 1383 youths of different crimes with a follow up period of 12 months
• no difference for property offenders
• 6% increase for drunk drivers (NB courts could take away licence but conference can’t)
• 38% decrease for violent offenders

Question 25

CONNECT

Answer 25

victim offender mediation conferencing that occurs as a deferred sentence, presentence or during sentence for adults mostly in 2 magistrates courts in London

Question 26

Justice Research Consortium

Answer 26

Conference with random assignment presentence for adults/ final warnings for youths community sentences and prison pre-release in Thames Valley

Question 27

REMEDI

Answer 27

victim offender mediation in 6 offices in South Yorkshire community services and prison for adults youth justice and diversion for young offenders