Restorative Justice In Australia
Research has shown that restorative justice conferences can reduce re-offending among juvenile offenders. What is restorative justice and what is the evidence to suggest it is effective?
Word Count: 2,589
There has been considerable interest in Australia since the late 1980’s in the use of restorative justice as an alternative to court proceedings. In particular, conferencing has been identified as a viable tool to reduce the seemingly proliferating level of offending amongst juveniles (Alder & Wundersitz, 1994), and indeed has been implemented in varying forms as a diversion away from the criminal justice system. In this essay, the notion of restorative justice will be explored, with a particular focus on the Australian implementation …show more content…
of conferencing as a means of reducing juvenile recidivism. Although theoretically conferencing may be seen as a viable alternative for adolescents to court proceedings, and indeed some evidence suggests it reduces recidivism, it will ultimately be concluded that the success of restorative justice programs depends on more than just its ability to reduce recidivism, and thus it will not always provide a useful alternative to more traditional criminal justice approaches.
The concept of restorative justice is difficult to define. Broadly, it refers to a process that incorporates the offender, victim, and often other interested parties in acknowledging the harm suffered as a result of criminal behaviour, and working toward a solution that incorporates restitution to the victim, accountability of the offender, and an acknowledgement of the reasons for the delinquency (Maxwell & Morris, 2001). As McGarrell et al. (2000, p. 6) explain, restorative justice ‘is an approach that seeks to build a community of concern around the [offender], the victim, and the family, friends, and supporters of both [offender] and victim, and to employ the moral force of that community to prevent further offending’.
Restorative justice practices take a variety of forms, and can be implemented at all stages of the criminal justice system, whether as a diversion from court, or as a substitution for sentencing (Daly, 2006). The most appropriate process will depend on a variety of factors, including the stage at which it is implemented, the background of the offender, the crime committed, and the willingness of various parties to be involved in the process.
One form of restorative justice, which has been particularly prevalent in responding to the escalation of juvenile delinquency in Australia and overseas, is conferencing (Alder & Wundersitz, 1994). The process involves the offender, victim and other affected parties being brought together with a facilitator to discuss the motivation and consequences of the individual’s delinquency, and working together to develop a resolution which reflects the differing perspectives of all affected parties (McGarrell et al., 2000). This allows the victim and other affected parties to openly discuss the impact of the criminal behaviour with the offender in a neutral environment. The process is generally utilised as a diversion from, or in conjunction with, court proceedings, and is usually only utilised where offenders have admitted guilt (Daly, 2002), as such offenders are more receptive of the process and its outcome.
Other predominant examples of restorative justice within the criminal justice system include victim offender mediation and circle sentencing. Victim offender mediation essentially involves the victim and offender meeting with an independent third party mediator, who facilitates discussion of the crime and the impact it has had (Van Ness, Morris & Maxwell, 2001). Circle sentencing involves the convening of a court in an informal setting, where the offender, victim and community members, as well as police, lawyers and the presiding magistrate, gather to discuss the incident and ultimately arrive at a sentence which reflects the concerns of all parties affected (Connors, 2004). Although these and other restorative justice practices have also been introduced into Australia, none of these have been so overwhelmingly embraced as conferencing, which now has a statutory foundation or is otherwise implemented in some form in all Australian jurisdictions (Daly, 2001).
One of the main theoretical underpinnings of restorative justice practices is the notion of reintegrative shaming. This essentially is based on the notion that stigmatisation increases deviancy. Under the criminal justice system, where an offender is found guilty they are branded with a criminal label, and punished in accordance with what the law feels appropriate to deter the offender and others from engaging in further criminal conduct. Insufficient consideration is given to the rehabilitation of the offender and the effects a criminal label can have on their status within the community. Thus, instead of being stigmatised by a retributive system and outcast from the community, reintegrative shaming involves the offender’s behaviour being condemned by their family and the community, and a solution being developed which not only holds them responsible for their actions, but also allows them to reintegrate back into society and work towards rehabilitation (Braithwaite, 1989).
By incorporating family and friends of the offender, as well as the victim and other community members in the process, much of the hostility an offender may show towards the criminal justice system can be removed, and the likelihood of recidivism reduced. As Braithwaite (1989, p. 69) points out, a person is more likely to respond to labels and punishment imposed by their family and friends, than by the criminal justice system, as ‘repute in the eyes of acquaintances matters more to people than the opinions or actions of criminal justice officials’.
In Australia, the theory of reintegrative shaming has been particularly influential in the development of conferencing models for juvenile delinquents. The first conferencing program in Australia was introduced in 1991 in the New South Wales town of Wagga Wagga by police, as a scheme aimed at cautioning juvenile offenders (Moore & O’Connell, 1994). The core objectives of this scheme reflected the theory of reintegrative shaming postulated by Braithwaite (1989), as the focus was not on the individual offender, but rather the offence committed, and the process involved contributions from family and friends of the offender, in terms of condemning the behaviour and developing a resolution (Moore & O’Connell, 1994). Since then, a number of variations of conferencing have developed in different Australian jurisdictions, but each still incorporate the theory as an essential component.
In addition to the theory of reintegrative shaming, there are a number of other factors which suggest that restorative justice, and in particular, conferencing should be effective as a means of reducing juvenile recidivism.
Daly and Hayes (cited in Maxwell & Morris, 2001) identify the level of remorse and feeling sorry for the victim as indicators of future recidivism amongst juveniles. By involving the victim and other parties in the process of conferencing, feelings of remorse and sympathy are likely to develop, as the offender is confronted with explanations of how his or her delinquency has affected the other parties. It is thus reasonable to conclude that when faced with an opportunity to re-offend, the individual may take these emotions into consideration and ultimately choose not to engage in criminal behaviour. This is in stark contrast to proceedings within the criminal justice system, where the victim has very little, if any involvement in proceedings, and the imposition of punishment is more likely to produce hostility than contrition.
The sanctions imposed as a result of conferencing also suggest that restorative justice practices have the potential to reduce juvenile recidivism. Where an individual is sanctioned by a court, the community generally labels them a criminal, and this stigmatism can cause hostility towards authorities and the community, prompting rebellious behaviour and delinquency. However, conference resolutions which allow the community to see the offender engaging in constructive behaviour may reduce the chance of the individual being judged as delinquent (Walgrave, 2001). Consequently, the individual is less likely to remain hostile and resistant towards authorities and the community, reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Moreover, the removal of this negative image only assists in the individual’s reacceptance into society.
Recent studies have suggested that there may be some link between a reduction in juvenile recidivism and participation in conferencing. In an analysis of conferencing and victim-offender mediation, Latimer, Dowden and Muise (2005) concluded that compared to other forms of processing, participation in restorative justice programs resulted in reductions in juvenile recidivism. However, the results of such studies have to be considered with caution, due to the many variables associated with conducting them.
One of these reasons relates to the voluntary nature of conferencing, and what has been termed “self-selection bias”. Essentially, it is argued that because participation in conferencing is voluntary, those who chose to participate are likely to be more motivated to working towards a solution, thus fostering the development of shame and guilt, and ultimately reducing recidivism (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). Sherman, Strang and Woods (2000) suggest that it may be possible to counteract this problem by randomly assigning cases to conferencing. However, this may undermine the purposes of conferencing, as the offender’s hostility towards the process will inhibit the formation of guilt and shame which promote rehabilitation and diminish re-offending rates (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005).
Another deficiency related to some of the studies lies in the lack of consistency in the period between the conference and the reassessment to determine recidivism. For example, in a study by Hayes, Prenzler and Wortley (1998), the period between the conference and follow-up was not consistent, and thus some offenders were given a greater opportunity to re-offend. Consequently, any implications about recidivism rates drawn from such studies are somewhat tainted, and need to be viewed with caution. To ensure that the results gathered are reliable, future studies need to ensure that they standardise the follow-up period so as each offender is given the same opportunity to re-offend.
Of the limited number of studies conducted, the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiment (RISE) arguably provides the best assessment of conferencing as a means of reducing adolescent recidivism. The study involved the random assignment of four classes of offenders to either conferencing or court processing, and assessing the rate of recidivism after certain intervals. Four groups were assessed in the study: drink drivers of all ages, juveniles under 18 years who committed property offences against personal property, juvenile shoplifters under 18 years, and violent offenders under 30 years. After a 12 month interval, the study showed that the rate of recidivism was significantly reduced in the group of violent offenders under 30 years assigned to conferencing as opposed to those assigned to court, whilst the other three groups showed slight or insignificant reductions in recidivism (Sherman, Strang & Woods, 2000).
The results of the study show that the impact of restorative justice practices, and in particular conferencing, on the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders differs depending on the type of crime committed. This is perhaps attributable to the differing circumstances which predicate the commission of different types of crime, and the subsequent interactions between victim and offender during conferencing (Sherman, Strang & Woods, 2000).
Prichard and Burton-Smith (2004) argue that a violent offender is more likely to feel emotions of remorse or shame, as they witness the effects of the crime first hand, and generally cannot remain resilient to the effects of their behaviour. On the other hand, property offenders such as shoplifters may not experience such emotions, as ‘the victim may be difficult to conceptualise and the harm difficult to quantify … no real people are hurt and the stolen items are barely missed by large corporations’ (Prichard & Burton-Smith, 2004, p. 251). Thus, the impact of conferencing on these offenders may be markedly different, as the violent offender is more likely to recognise the harm suffered to the victim, and thus develop feelings remorse and guilt and recognise the need for reparation. This recognition may also contribute to an individual’s decision not to re-offend if presented with the opportunity.
Even if it is concluded that restorative justice does have an impact on recidivism, this is by no means conclusive of its success as an alternative to more traditional criminal justice practices. Only by looking at the core aims of conferencing, and assessing whether the process produces the desired outcomes, can we truly determine that it is successful.
One of these core aims is to give the victim a greater role than they would otherwise have in the process. In traditional criminal justice system processes, the victim has very little, if any role in how the offender is dealt with. However, conferencing aims to empower victims by allowing them to participate in the process, asking questions as to why the offender engaged in the criminal conduct, and expressing to the offender the impact it has had on them (Alder & Wundersitz, 1994). Furthermore, it allows the victim to experience first hand the remorse and guilt the offender may show, and allows for the possibility of a genuine apology and a resolution of feelings of hostility towards the victim – something many victims have indicated they want more out of a conference than retribution or reparation (Umbreit, Coates & Kalanj, cited in Strang, 2001).
In terms of victim satisfaction, evidence suggests that victims are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of conferencing in comparison to those of court proceedings. In an evaluation of victim satisfaction flowing from conferencing practices in Australia and the UK, Strang et al. (2006) found that an overwhelming number of victims were generally content with the conferencing process and its outcome. Furthermore, progress reports on RISE indicated that a greater percentage of victims were satisfied with the conferencing process and the end results following on from it (Sherman et al., 1998; Strang et al., 1999). The evidence from these studies indicates that in terms of victim satisfaction at least, conferencing seems to be a viable alternative to proceedings under the criminal justice system.
Another important consideration is whether the resolution from the conference, retributive or restorative, is complied with. Given that the aims of restorative justice include making restoration to the victim and holding the offender accountable for his or her actions (Maxwell & Morris, 2001), if the resolution of the conference is consistently ignored, then the real purposes of the process are undermined, and it cannot be truly said that the practice is successful. Of course, it is going to be impossible for restorative justice to have a greater compliance rate in terms of punishment than the courts. However, evidence suggests that fulfillment of restoration orders is more likely. In their meta-analysis of restorative justice, Latimer, Dowden and Muise (2005) found that the level of restitution compliance was greater in those participating in restorative justice programs than those participating in more traditional forms of criminal justice. This is a further indicator, at least in terms of restoration, that restorative justice may provide a legitimate alternative to traditional criminal justice practices.
Restorative justice practices such as conferencing have an immense potential to reduce juvenile recidivism in Australia and overseas.
As evidence suggests, by incorporating principles of reintegrative shaming and developing resolutions that aim to reduce stigmatisation, there is a greater prospect for the offender to rehabilitate rather than recidivate. However, this does not mean that restorative justice is the answer to adolescent delinquency. The success of such programs as conferencing depends on the individual circumstances of each case, including the type of offence committed, the level of remorse, and the desire of the offender to restore justice to the victim. Furthermore, a reduction in recidivism is not determinative of success. It must also be shown that other fundamental aims of restorative justice have been fulfilled, such as victim involvement and satisfaction with the process, and an increase in compliance with restitution orders. Ultimately, the success of restorative justice is determined not by its ability to reduce recidivism alone, but its overall capacity as an alternative to traditional criminal justice …show more content…
practices.
List of References
Alder, C & Wundersitz, J 1994, ‘New Directions in Juvenile Justice Reform in Australia’, in C Alder & J Wundersitz (eds), Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism?, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp. 1-7.
Braithwaite, J 1989, Crime, shame and reintegration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 55, 69.
Connors, D 2004, ‘Circle sentencing’, Impact, Summer 2004, p. 10.
Daly, K 2001, ‘Conferencing in Australia and New Zealand: Variations, Research Findings, and Prospects’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp.
59-62.
Daly, K 2002, ‘Restorative justice: The real story’, Punishment & Society, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 57, 73-4.
Hayes, H, Prenzler, T & Wortley, R 1998, Making Amends: Final Evaluation of the Queensland Community Conferencing Pilot, Centre for Crime Policy and Public Safety, School of Justice Administration, Griffith University, Brisbane, p. 40.
Latimer, J, Dowden, C & Muise, D 2005, ‘The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis’, The Prison Journal, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 132, 137-41.
Lavelle, K 2004, ‘Circle sentencing breaks cycle’, Law Society Journal, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 19-21.
McGarrell, EF, Olivares, K, Crawford, K & Kroovand N 2000, Returning Justice to the Community: The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiment, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, pp. 1-6.
Maxwell, G & Morris, A 2001, ‘Family Group Conferences and Reoffending’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp.
243-6.
Moore, DB & O’Connell, TA 1994, ‘Family Conferencing in Wagga Wagga: A Communitarian Model of Justice’, in C Alder & J Wundersitz (eds), Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism?, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, p. 46-55.
Prichard, J & Burton-Smith, R 2004, ‘Conscience and moral development – an explanation of RISE recidivism results with implications for juvenile conferencing and restorative justice’, Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 250-1.
Sherman, LW, Strang, H, Barnes, GC, Braithwaite, J, Inkpen, N & Teh, M 1998, Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), Law Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 157-8.
Sherman, L, Strang, H & Woods, D 2000, Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiment (RISE), Centre for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 12-15.
Strang, H, Barnes, GC, Braithwaite J & Sherman, LW 1999, Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), Law Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, p. 127.
Strang, H 2001, ‘Justice for Victims of Young Offenders: The Centrality of Emotional Harm and Restoration’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 184-5.
Strang, H, Sherman, L, Angel CM, Woods DJ, Bennett, S, Newbury-Birch, D & Inkpen, N 2006, ‘Victim Evaluations of Face-to-Face Restorative Justice Conferences: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 62, no. 2, p. 301.
Van Ness, D, Morris, A & Maxwell, G 2001, ‘Introducing Restorative Justice’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, p. 7.
Walgrave, L 2001, ‘On Restoration and Punishment: Favourable Similarities and Fortunate Differences’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, p. 23.
Word Count: 2,589
There has been considerable interest in Australia since the late 1980’s in the use of restorative justice as an alternative to court proceedings. In particular, conferencing has been identified as a viable tool to reduce the seemingly proliferating level of offending amongst juveniles (Alder & Wundersitz, 1994), and indeed has been implemented in varying forms as a diversion away from the criminal justice system. In this essay, the notion of restorative justice will be explored, with a particular focus on the Australian implementation …show more content…
of conferencing as a means of reducing juvenile recidivism. Although theoretically conferencing may be seen as a viable alternative for adolescents to court proceedings, and indeed some evidence suggests it reduces recidivism, it will ultimately be concluded that the success of restorative justice programs depends on more than just its ability to reduce recidivism, and thus it will not always provide a useful alternative to more traditional criminal justice approaches.
The concept of restorative justice is difficult to define. Broadly, it refers to a process that incorporates the offender, victim, and often other interested parties in acknowledging the harm suffered as a result of criminal behaviour, and working toward a solution that incorporates restitution to the victim, accountability of the offender, and an acknowledgement of the reasons for the delinquency (Maxwell & Morris, 2001). As McGarrell et al. (2000, p. 6) explain, restorative justice ‘is an approach that seeks to build a community of concern around the [offender], the victim, and the family, friends, and supporters of both [offender] and victim, and to employ the moral force of that community to prevent further offending’.
Restorative justice practices take a variety of forms, and can be implemented at all stages of the criminal justice system, whether as a diversion from court, or as a substitution for sentencing (Daly, 2006). The most appropriate process will depend on a variety of factors, including the stage at which it is implemented, the background of the offender, the crime committed, and the willingness of various parties to be involved in the process.
One form of restorative justice, which has been particularly prevalent in responding to the escalation of juvenile delinquency in Australia and overseas, is conferencing (Alder & Wundersitz, 1994). The process involves the offender, victim and other affected parties being brought together with a facilitator to discuss the motivation and consequences of the individual’s delinquency, and working together to develop a resolution which reflects the differing perspectives of all affected parties (McGarrell et al., 2000). This allows the victim and other affected parties to openly discuss the impact of the criminal behaviour with the offender in a neutral environment. The process is generally utilised as a diversion from, or in conjunction with, court proceedings, and is usually only utilised where offenders have admitted guilt (Daly, 2002), as such offenders are more receptive of the process and its outcome.
Other predominant examples of restorative justice within the criminal justice system include victim offender mediation and circle sentencing. Victim offender mediation essentially involves the victim and offender meeting with an independent third party mediator, who facilitates discussion of the crime and the impact it has had (Van Ness, Morris & Maxwell, 2001). Circle sentencing involves the convening of a court in an informal setting, where the offender, victim and community members, as well as police, lawyers and the presiding magistrate, gather to discuss the incident and ultimately arrive at a sentence which reflects the concerns of all parties affected (Connors, 2004). Although these and other restorative justice practices have also been introduced into Australia, none of these have been so overwhelmingly embraced as conferencing, which now has a statutory foundation or is otherwise implemented in some form in all Australian jurisdictions (Daly, 2001).
One of the main theoretical underpinnings of restorative justice practices is the notion of reintegrative shaming. This essentially is based on the notion that stigmatisation increases deviancy. Under the criminal justice system, where an offender is found guilty they are branded with a criminal label, and punished in accordance with what the law feels appropriate to deter the offender and others from engaging in further criminal conduct. Insufficient consideration is given to the rehabilitation of the offender and the effects a criminal label can have on their status within the community. Thus, instead of being stigmatised by a retributive system and outcast from the community, reintegrative shaming involves the offender’s behaviour being condemned by their family and the community, and a solution being developed which not only holds them responsible for their actions, but also allows them to reintegrate back into society and work towards rehabilitation (Braithwaite, 1989).
By incorporating family and friends of the offender, as well as the victim and other community members in the process, much of the hostility an offender may show towards the criminal justice system can be removed, and the likelihood of recidivism reduced. As Braithwaite (1989, p. 69) points out, a person is more likely to respond to labels and punishment imposed by their family and friends, than by the criminal justice system, as ‘repute in the eyes of acquaintances matters more to people than the opinions or actions of criminal justice officials’.
In Australia, the theory of reintegrative shaming has been particularly influential in the development of conferencing models for juvenile delinquents. The first conferencing program in Australia was introduced in 1991 in the New South Wales town of Wagga Wagga by police, as a scheme aimed at cautioning juvenile offenders (Moore & O’Connell, 1994). The core objectives of this scheme reflected the theory of reintegrative shaming postulated by Braithwaite (1989), as the focus was not on the individual offender, but rather the offence committed, and the process involved contributions from family and friends of the offender, in terms of condemning the behaviour and developing a resolution (Moore & O’Connell, 1994). Since then, a number of variations of conferencing have developed in different Australian jurisdictions, but each still incorporate the theory as an essential component.
In addition to the theory of reintegrative shaming, there are a number of other factors which suggest that restorative justice, and in particular, conferencing should be effective as a means of reducing juvenile recidivism.
Daly and Hayes (cited in Maxwell & Morris, 2001) identify the level of remorse and feeling sorry for the victim as indicators of future recidivism amongst juveniles. By involving the victim and other parties in the process of conferencing, feelings of remorse and sympathy are likely to develop, as the offender is confronted with explanations of how his or her delinquency has affected the other parties. It is thus reasonable to conclude that when faced with an opportunity to re-offend, the individual may take these emotions into consideration and ultimately choose not to engage in criminal behaviour. This is in stark contrast to proceedings within the criminal justice system, where the victim has very little, if any involvement in proceedings, and the imposition of punishment is more likely to produce hostility than contrition.
The sanctions imposed as a result of conferencing also suggest that restorative justice practices have the potential to reduce juvenile recidivism. Where an individual is sanctioned by a court, the community generally labels them a criminal, and this stigmatism can cause hostility towards authorities and the community, prompting rebellious behaviour and delinquency. However, conference resolutions which allow the community to see the offender engaging in constructive behaviour may reduce the chance of the individual being judged as delinquent (Walgrave, 2001). Consequently, the individual is less likely to remain hostile and resistant towards authorities and the community, reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Moreover, the removal of this negative image only assists in the individual’s reacceptance into society.
Recent studies have suggested that there may be some link between a reduction in juvenile recidivism and participation in conferencing. In an analysis of conferencing and victim-offender mediation, Latimer, Dowden and Muise (2005) concluded that compared to other forms of processing, participation in restorative justice programs resulted in reductions in juvenile recidivism. However, the results of such studies have to be considered with caution, due to the many variables associated with conducting them.
One of these reasons relates to the voluntary nature of conferencing, and what has been termed “self-selection bias”. Essentially, it is argued that because participation in conferencing is voluntary, those who chose to participate are likely to be more motivated to working towards a solution, thus fostering the development of shame and guilt, and ultimately reducing recidivism (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). Sherman, Strang and Woods (2000) suggest that it may be possible to counteract this problem by randomly assigning cases to conferencing. However, this may undermine the purposes of conferencing, as the offender’s hostility towards the process will inhibit the formation of guilt and shame which promote rehabilitation and diminish re-offending rates (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005).
Another deficiency related to some of the studies lies in the lack of consistency in the period between the conference and the reassessment to determine recidivism. For example, in a study by Hayes, Prenzler and Wortley (1998), the period between the conference and follow-up was not consistent, and thus some offenders were given a greater opportunity to re-offend. Consequently, any implications about recidivism rates drawn from such studies are somewhat tainted, and need to be viewed with caution. To ensure that the results gathered are reliable, future studies need to ensure that they standardise the follow-up period so as each offender is given the same opportunity to re-offend.
Of the limited number of studies conducted, the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiment (RISE) arguably provides the best assessment of conferencing as a means of reducing adolescent recidivism. The study involved the random assignment of four classes of offenders to either conferencing or court processing, and assessing the rate of recidivism after certain intervals. Four groups were assessed in the study: drink drivers of all ages, juveniles under 18 years who committed property offences against personal property, juvenile shoplifters under 18 years, and violent offenders under 30 years. After a 12 month interval, the study showed that the rate of recidivism was significantly reduced in the group of violent offenders under 30 years assigned to conferencing as opposed to those assigned to court, whilst the other three groups showed slight or insignificant reductions in recidivism (Sherman, Strang & Woods, 2000).
The results of the study show that the impact of restorative justice practices, and in particular conferencing, on the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders differs depending on the type of crime committed. This is perhaps attributable to the differing circumstances which predicate the commission of different types of crime, and the subsequent interactions between victim and offender during conferencing (Sherman, Strang & Woods, 2000).
Prichard and Burton-Smith (2004) argue that a violent offender is more likely to feel emotions of remorse or shame, as they witness the effects of the crime first hand, and generally cannot remain resilient to the effects of their behaviour. On the other hand, property offenders such as shoplifters may not experience such emotions, as ‘the victim may be difficult to conceptualise and the harm difficult to quantify … no real people are hurt and the stolen items are barely missed by large corporations’ (Prichard & Burton-Smith, 2004, p. 251). Thus, the impact of conferencing on these offenders may be markedly different, as the violent offender is more likely to recognise the harm suffered to the victim, and thus develop feelings remorse and guilt and recognise the need for reparation. This recognition may also contribute to an individual’s decision not to re-offend if presented with the opportunity.
Even if it is concluded that restorative justice does have an impact on recidivism, this is by no means conclusive of its success as an alternative to more traditional criminal justice practices. Only by looking at the core aims of conferencing, and assessing whether the process produces the desired outcomes, can we truly determine that it is successful.
One of these core aims is to give the victim a greater role than they would otherwise have in the process. In traditional criminal justice system processes, the victim has very little, if any role in how the offender is dealt with. However, conferencing aims to empower victims by allowing them to participate in the process, asking questions as to why the offender engaged in the criminal conduct, and expressing to the offender the impact it has had on them (Alder & Wundersitz, 1994). Furthermore, it allows the victim to experience first hand the remorse and guilt the offender may show, and allows for the possibility of a genuine apology and a resolution of feelings of hostility towards the victim – something many victims have indicated they want more out of a conference than retribution or reparation (Umbreit, Coates & Kalanj, cited in Strang, 2001).
In terms of victim satisfaction, evidence suggests that victims are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of conferencing in comparison to those of court proceedings. In an evaluation of victim satisfaction flowing from conferencing practices in Australia and the UK, Strang et al. (2006) found that an overwhelming number of victims were generally content with the conferencing process and its outcome. Furthermore, progress reports on RISE indicated that a greater percentage of victims were satisfied with the conferencing process and the end results following on from it (Sherman et al., 1998; Strang et al., 1999). The evidence from these studies indicates that in terms of victim satisfaction at least, conferencing seems to be a viable alternative to proceedings under the criminal justice system.
Another important consideration is whether the resolution from the conference, retributive or restorative, is complied with. Given that the aims of restorative justice include making restoration to the victim and holding the offender accountable for his or her actions (Maxwell & Morris, 2001), if the resolution of the conference is consistently ignored, then the real purposes of the process are undermined, and it cannot be truly said that the practice is successful. Of course, it is going to be impossible for restorative justice to have a greater compliance rate in terms of punishment than the courts. However, evidence suggests that fulfillment of restoration orders is more likely. In their meta-analysis of restorative justice, Latimer, Dowden and Muise (2005) found that the level of restitution compliance was greater in those participating in restorative justice programs than those participating in more traditional forms of criminal justice. This is a further indicator, at least in terms of restoration, that restorative justice may provide a legitimate alternative to traditional criminal justice practices.
Restorative justice practices such as conferencing have an immense potential to reduce juvenile recidivism in Australia and overseas.
As evidence suggests, by incorporating principles of reintegrative shaming and developing resolutions that aim to reduce stigmatisation, there is a greater prospect for the offender to rehabilitate rather than recidivate. However, this does not mean that restorative justice is the answer to adolescent delinquency. The success of such programs as conferencing depends on the individual circumstances of each case, including the type of offence committed, the level of remorse, and the desire of the offender to restore justice to the victim. Furthermore, a reduction in recidivism is not determinative of success. It must also be shown that other fundamental aims of restorative justice have been fulfilled, such as victim involvement and satisfaction with the process, and an increase in compliance with restitution orders. Ultimately, the success of restorative justice is determined not by its ability to reduce recidivism alone, but its overall capacity as an alternative to traditional criminal justice …show more content…
practices.
List of References
Alder, C & Wundersitz, J 1994, ‘New Directions in Juvenile Justice Reform in Australia’, in C Alder & J Wundersitz (eds), Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism?, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp. 1-7.
Braithwaite, J 1989, Crime, shame and reintegration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 55, 69.
Connors, D 2004, ‘Circle sentencing’, Impact, Summer 2004, p. 10.
Daly, K 2001, ‘Conferencing in Australia and New Zealand: Variations, Research Findings, and Prospects’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp.
59-62.
Daly, K 2002, ‘Restorative justice: The real story’, Punishment & Society, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 57, 73-4.
Hayes, H, Prenzler, T & Wortley, R 1998, Making Amends: Final Evaluation of the Queensland Community Conferencing Pilot, Centre for Crime Policy and Public Safety, School of Justice Administration, Griffith University, Brisbane, p. 40.
Latimer, J, Dowden, C & Muise, D 2005, ‘The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis’, The Prison Journal, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 132, 137-41.
Lavelle, K 2004, ‘Circle sentencing breaks cycle’, Law Society Journal, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 19-21.
McGarrell, EF, Olivares, K, Crawford, K & Kroovand N 2000, Returning Justice to the Community: The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiment, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, pp. 1-6.
Maxwell, G & Morris, A 2001, ‘Family Group Conferences and Reoffending’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp.
243-6.
Moore, DB & O’Connell, TA 1994, ‘Family Conferencing in Wagga Wagga: A Communitarian Model of Justice’, in C Alder & J Wundersitz (eds), Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism?, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, p. 46-55.
Prichard, J & Burton-Smith, R 2004, ‘Conscience and moral development – an explanation of RISE recidivism results with implications for juvenile conferencing and restorative justice’, Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 250-1.
Sherman, LW, Strang, H, Barnes, GC, Braithwaite, J, Inkpen, N & Teh, M 1998, Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), Law Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 157-8.
Sherman, L, Strang, H & Woods, D 2000, Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiment (RISE), Centre for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 12-15.
Strang, H, Barnes, GC, Braithwaite J & Sherman, LW 1999, Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Progress Report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), Law Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, p. 127.
Strang, H 2001, ‘Justice for Victims of Young Offenders: The Centrality of Emotional Harm and Restoration’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 184-5.
Strang, H, Sherman, L, Angel CM, Woods DJ, Bennett, S, Newbury-Birch, D & Inkpen, N 2006, ‘Victim Evaluations of Face-to-Face Restorative Justice Conferences: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 62, no. 2, p. 301.
Van Ness, D, Morris, A & Maxwell, G 2001, ‘Introducing Restorative Justice’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, p. 7.
Walgrave, L 2001, ‘On Restoration and Punishment: Favourable Similarities and Fortunate Differences’, in A Morris & G Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Oxford, p. 23.