evaluation

• supporting evidence = sherman and strong = reviewed 20 studies of face to face restorative justice in uk usa and australia = reduced reoffending = low as 11 percent vs 37 in control = effective at reducing recidivism BUT a lot more effective for violent crimes so may not work for all
• may not always be effective = offender must admit guilt = if not and psychopath traits = ineffective = not all victims may want to partake or see the offender again = not a universal solution as wachtel and mccold encourage all 3 parties to be involved
• supporting evidence = uk restorative justice council 2015 reports 85 percent victim satisfaction and somerset police report 92 percent = effective for victims from a range of crimes = in normal court victim is rarely involved = more effective as helps victim too
• ethical issue = impact on victims especially if offender is not empathetic = especially unethical if used as an alternative to prison = issue of voluntary consent as offenders may feel forced and cause them to feel shame = needs to be carefull considered
• ethical ways to deliver = involve the wider community = eg a peace circle = community programme in areas of high crime = create respect and support for both victims and offenders = dont exclude criminals from society
• ethical = social benefits = introduces as original system did not meet victim needs = provides victim will control and choice to overcome the crime = discourage reoffending = more beneficial than court only = economic benefits too = reoffending costs uk 9.5 bn a year = council claim 8 saved for every 1 pound spent on restorative justice = often funded by fines to offender