A03: Restorative Justice - Dealing with offending behaviour

• Evaluation 


  _
• +RJ: Supports needs of survivors A03

  The Restorative Justice Council (Shapland et al 2008) reported the results of a 7-year project. 85% of survivors said they were satisfied with the process.

  • 78% would recommend it, about 60% said the process made them feel better about the incident, 2% said it made them feel worse.

  This suggests that restorative justice is a worthwhile experience and help survivors of crime cope with the aftermath of the incident.
• RJ: Supports needs of survivors A03 = COUNTERPOINT:

  RJ programmes are not always as survivor-focused as reported in satisfaction surveys. Survivors of crime may be used to help rehabilitate offenders, not the other way round (Wood & Suzuki 2016).

  • This suggests that the needs of the survivor may be seen as secondary to the need to rehabilitate offenders.
• + RJ leads to a decrease in offending A03

  In a meta-analysis Strang et al (2013) found offenders who experienced RJ were less likely to reoffend - through reduction was larger in cases of violent crime than property crime.

  • Bain (2012) found lowered recidivism with adult offenders who had one-to-one contact with their survivor (rather than community contact).

  This suggests that RJ has a positive impact on reoffending, maybe more so for some types of offence than other and some approaches.
• -RJ: Offenders may abuse the system A03

  The success of RJ hinges on an offender genuinely feeling regret for their actions.

  • Van Gijseghem (2003) suggests that offenders may use restorative justice to avoid punishment, play down their faults or even take pride in their relationship with the survivor.

  This would explain why not all offenders ultimately benefit from restorative justice and go onto reoffend.
• -RJ: Domestic Violence A03

  In domestic violence cases, the power imbalance between abuser and abused puts pressure on survivors to go along with their partner's suggestions during mediation.

  • However, RK in domestic violence cases has produced positive results for survivors e.g. where a couple wishes to stay together to address the harm causes (Sen et al 2018).

  This suggests that for some types of crime the offender may manipulate the situation so great care is needed.
• +RJ: Support for RJ A03

  • RJ is shown to decrease rates of reoffending.

  Strang et al (2013) conducted a meta analysis (of 10 studies) comparing RJ vs custodial sentencing.

  Those who received RJ were significantly less likely to reoffend.

  This effect was greater for violent criminals compared to other types of crime.

  This matters because it effects who should be offered this opportunity as not every offender/victim will benefit from participation.
• +RJ: Benefit of RJ on survivors of crime: RJ A03

  • Research show benefits of RJ on survivors of crime.

  Shapland et al (2007): RJC reported results from 7 year research project using RJ. 85% of survivors satisfied from their meeting with 78% recommending it to others. 2% said it made them feel worse. 60% made feel better.

  Suggest RJ has +ve effect on majority of survivors, strengthening its effectiveness & validity. Showing overwhelming majority of survivors gained something from engaging in the program.

  • This evidence suggest RJ has +vely outcomes on survivors as well as offenders.
• -RJ: Not suitable for all crimes: RJ A03

  P: RJ may not be suitable for all crimes (sexual violence, murder, domestic abuse).

  E: It is unlikely that a rape victim would want contact with the perpetrator and in cases of domestic abuse the power imbalance between can put pressure on the survivor.

  E: This is especially true if mediation is necessary to work out financial details and access arrangements, the survivor may fear the worst if they do not go along.

  L: Supporting caution must be shown where there is a risk that RJ can be abused as a way to intimidate OR control the survivor.
• -RJ: Abusing system: RJ A03

  P: Abusing the system, and indeed this is not the only abuse of the system RJ is accountable for.

  E: Van Gijsegham (2005) suggest offenders use system for many reasons other than genuine rehabilitation. Where participation leads to reduced sentence its easy to see how this could happen.

  E: He suggested some prisoners take pride in their relationship with the victim & it was an opportunity for them to engage in contact with them.

  L: Meaning, any apparent belief not real & thus explains why significant n.o of those who engage in RJ go on to reoffend (about half).