Expanding a community's justice response to sex crimes through advocacy, prosecutorial, and public health collaboration: introducing the RESTORE program

Problems in criminal justice system response to date-acquaintance rape and nonpenetration sexual offenses include (a) they are markers of a sexual offending career, yet are viewed as minor; (b) perpetrators are not held accountable in ways that reduce reoffense; and (c) criminal justice response disappoints and traumatizes victims. To address these problems, a collaboration of victim services, prosecutors, legal scholars, and public health professionals are implementing and evaluating RESTORE, a victim-driven, community-based restorative justice program for selected sex crimes. RESTORE prepares survivors, responsible persons (offenders), and both parties' families and friends for face-to-face dialogue to identify the harm and develop a redress plan. The program then monitors the offender's compliance for 12 months. The article summarizes empirical data on problems in criminal justice response, defines restorative justice models, and examines outcome. Then the RESTORE program processes and goals are described. The article highlights community collaboration in building and sustaining this program.     

Restorative justice practice: An examination of program completion and recidivism

Studies of restorative justice programs continue to provide a review of restorative justice practice and impact. While this body of research is growing, many questions remain regarding the impact of restorative justice in reducing crime. By relying on individual and community-level data, the present study examined how offense type and poverty level influenced program completion and recidivism among juveniles in a restorative justice program. This study also examined the relationship between program completion and recidivism. Findings revealed that status offenders in the restorative justice program were more likely to complete the program and less likely to recidivate than status offenders in the comparison group. In addition, property offenders in the restorative justice program were less likely to recidivate than property offenders in the comparison group. Poverty level at the community-level had a significant influence in both program completion and recidivism.     

Regenerative justice,beyond restoring

This paper outlines a new form of justice, called regenerative justice. Regenerative justice is the coupling of restorative justice with the notion of generative justice, which involves the explicit and intentional discovery and building of life meanings, as well as the consideration of the relationships that those meanings have with wrongdoing and ‘making things right’. This exploration comes about after first considering restorative justice, then providing a critique that uncovers potential blind spots in restorative practice. Logotherapeutic techniques, including: Socratic dialogue, attitude modulation, and dereflection, are used by therapists to help people discover meaning and purpose and have successfully assisted crime victims and offenders. Borrowing from these techniques and specific questioning approaches, restorative dialogue facilitators can enhance restorative practice, particularly in the phases of preparation for restorative dialogue and follow-up after restorative dialogue, by deliberately emphasizing meaning-building discussions (generative justice). Therefore, regenerative justice synthesizes the restoration of people and relationships with the generation of peaceful and healing meanings that can help stakeholders in wrongdoing make sense out of suffering and move forward with a sense of purpose. An example of this process is illustrated in a victim-offender dialogue in a crime of severe violence, where meaning-building can be particularly powerful.     

Youth justice conferencing and indigenous over-representation in the Queensland juvenile justice system: a micro-simulation case study

Restorative justice conferencing for young offenders is firmly established in Australian juvenile justice, and legislated conferencing schemes are operating in all Australian states and territories. While there is some variation in the terms used to describe restorative justice conferences (e.g., family group conferencing, family conferencing, or youth justice conferencing), there is much more consistency in how the conferencing process is managed across Australian jurisdictions. In Queensland youth justice conferencing is a process that brings together an offender, the victim and their supporters to discuss the harm caused by the offending behaviour and provide the young person with an opportunity to take responsibility for his or her behaviour and make amends. This paper begins by briefly sketching the development of restorative justice conferencing in Queensland and describes the Juvenile Justice Simulation Model (JJSM), a micro-simulation model developed for criminal justice policy analysis in Queensland, Australia. We use this micro-simulation model to conduct an experimental exploration of the effects that youth justice conferencing has on system-wide outcomes for indigenous young people. The model simulates the impact of interventions up until 2011 on the number of finalised youth justice court appearances. Our results indicate that youth justice conferencing is unlikely to reduce the over-representation of indigenous young people in the juvenile justice system. The simulations demonstrated that, by the 2011, youth justice conferencing would result in a 12.5% decrease in finalised court appearances. Unfortunately, this decrease was more apparent for non-indigenous young people (13.7% decrease in court appearances) than for indigenous young people, who had a 10.5% decrease in court appearances. This differential impact of conferencing is due to the different court appearance profiles between indigenous and non-indigenous young offenders, with indigenous young people initiating offending at an earlier age and offending more frequently than non-indigenous young offenders.     

Patterns of victim marginalization in victim-offender mediation: some lessons learned

This article discusses issues that restorative justice programs may face during implementation and lessons learned from an exploratory study. We examined various perspectives of multiple participants who experienced a Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM) program in a mid-sized Midwestern city in the U.S. The primary data source comprised 34 interviews with 37 participants including adult crime victims, juvenile offenders and their parents, mediators, and representatives from referring agencies. Observations complemented the interview data. Findings revealed patterns of victim marginalization during the processes used: victims were not prepared appropriately; were at times pressured by mediators to behave in certain ways; and, occasionally felt intimidated by offenders and/or their families. We discuss some factors that may have influenced the emergence of these patterns. This study revealed gaps between the guiding principles of restorative justice theory and field practices, particularly sensitivity toward victims to meet their needs. We suggest that restorative justice programs should consider using a monitoring system to ensure that the processes used remain consistent with the values and principles of restorative justice.     

Responding to young people responsible for harm: a comparative study of restorative and conventional approaches

Research investigating the impact of restorative responses on offenders has increased in sophistication and complexity over the last decade. Extending beyond earlier studies documenting satisfaction with restorative justice, investigators have considered its relationship with recidivism, reparation compliance and perception of fairness. A few experimental studies have compared conventional and restorative approaches, with results generally favoring the latter. This study focuses on intermediate outcomes of justice approaches on adolescents responsible for harm. These outcomes represent benefits of restorative justice often theoretically argued but rarely empirically evaluated. The study employed a quasi‐experimental design and scales developed through previous qualitative research and consultation with stakeholders. Adolescents participating in conventional vs restorative responses, in both court and school contexts, were compared on eight variables in three areas: accountability, relationship repair and closure. While some variation in outcome depends on context, the results add to the growing literature documenting the benefits of restorative approaches.     

Ten Years On, the ‘Three Circle’ Model of Restorative & Transformative Justice: A Tool to Combat Victimization and Recidivism

This paper had its genesis 10 years ago in the authors’ development of a communitarian ‘three circle’ model of restorative and transformative justice for a pilot restorative justice study used with serious and repeat adult offenders appearing in the Magistrates’ Courts in Western Australia. The model was designed in part to place their crimes within a context, something that rarely occurs within the mainstream adversarial criminal justice system in Australia. The model was primarily designed to provide victims of crime with the best outcome and offenders with the opportunity to provide apology and restitution, as well as take responsibility for their actions. The three circles, each including two facilitators, are: Circle 1: consists of the perpetrator who has pleaded guilty to a specified criminal act together with his/her family and/or friends; Circle 2: consists of the victim(s) of the crime together with their family and/or friends. Circle 3: consists of a combination of the first two circles, tasked to seek, if possible, a mutually agreeable resolution that culminates in a report to present to the Magistrate in court to use in mitigation of sentencing. Importantly, although the 30-month study had socially and economically significant results, 10 years after its completion there is still no restorative justice program in the adult courts in Western Australia. Because of this, the authors also set out to question the state government’s motivation in largely ignoring this successful process.     

The effectiveness of reintegrative shaming and restorative justice conferences: focusing on juvenile offenders' perceptions in Australian reintegrative shaming experiments

This article examines the effectiveness of diversionary restorative justice (RJ) conferences through the eyes of juvenile offenders. In Australia, Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) are based on Braithwaite's theory of reintegrative shaming. Previous studies, although showing that RISE reported high levels of victim satisfaction and positive changes in the attitudes of offenders, also demonstrated that it has different outcomes for juvenile offenders depending on the type of offense with which they were charged. However, the effectiveness of RISE in terms of the offenders' perceptions has not been addressed, and the impact of the offenders' perceptions about RISE still remains under investigation. Using Australian data from RISE between 1995 and 1999, this article examines juvenile offenders' perceptions on preventing reoffending, repaying the victim and society, and the degree of repentance. The data were taken from interviews with juvenile offenders to measure their perceptions after the court or RISE processing. A comparison of standard court processing effects and RISE on juvenile offending, including property crime, shoplifting, and violent offenses, was undertaken. The results from this study were somewhat inconsistent with previous research. In this study, there was no significant relationship between RJ conference and the offenders' own perceptions on the prevention of future offending. However, it was found that there were treatment effects on repaying the victim, repaying society, and the degree of feeling repentance, and that younger offenders wanted to repay the victim/society and feel repentance.     

Narrative accounts from the citizens,victims, and offenders restoring justice program

This paper describes the Citizens, Victims, and Offenders Restoring Justice (CVORJ) program, a prison-based program conducted as a pilot study at the Washington State Reformatory. The program brings together offenders and victims - though not involved in the same crime - in the company of interested community members to discuss restorative justice principles. The program focuses on the sharing of personal narratives of crime to explore how the harms resulting from crime can best be addressed and justice achieved. Of interest was how a restorative justice model that highlighted community participation could be incorporated into a correctional setting and whether healing could result from the use of surrogate offenders, victims, and community members. The restorative nature of the program, its method of operation, results from the qualitative evaluation, and key implementation challenges are presented.     

Transforming Teens: Measuring the Effects of Restorative Justice Principles in a Teen Court Setting

This paper examines the impact of restorative justice principles in a teen court setting. Specifically, our research attempts to quantitatively measure learning of certain restorative justice principles through the teen court process by comparing matched, pre‐ and post‐survey responses to questions involving the adolescent's ability to understand their crime as a violation of relationships within their community, as opposed to merely a violation of law. Qualitative responses regarding the efficacy of the teen court program from both teen participants and their parents are also examined in the context of restorative justice principles. Finally, the efficacy of the teen court model is discussed in terms of recidivism rates compared to teens who do not experience the teen court process.     

Family Conferencing for Juvenile Offenders: A Singaporean Case Study in Restorative Justice

Restorative justice has been or is being adopted in many parts of the world, including countries in Asia. In the case of Singapore, restorative justice was adopted by the court system in 1997 as its guiding philosophy in its approach towards juvenile offenders. This article traces the adoption of restorative justice by the Juvenile Court in Singapore and the use of family conferencing in the light of the principles of restorative justice. It concludes by suggesting areas where the family conferencing system in Singapore can be improved, and possible lessons for other jurisdictions considering adopting family conferencing.     

The Importance of Perceptions in Restorative Justice Conferences: The Influence of Offender Personality Traits on Procedural Justice and Shaming

Research suggests that restorative justice (RJ) conferences are more just than traditional court processing due to the presence of procedural justice (PJ). These conferences also promote reintegrative shaming which, in contrast to disintegrative shaming, allows offenders to repair their ties with the community. Yet, fairness and the type of shaming experienced may depend on perceptions of the offender. We argue that the personality traits of negative emotionality and low constraint influence offenders' evaluations of the fairness of these conferences, which have implications for their experience of shaming. We test these arguments using data from a sample of 498 offenders involved in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. Results reveal that personality traits affect perceptions of PJ and both types of shaming, and that PJ mediates these effects. The findings support the notion that RJ conferences are perceived to be procedurally just and reintegrative for certain types of offenders.     

Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures

Two studies investigated people’s perceptions of the acceptability of restorative justice procedures for handling crimes that differ in severity. Results from Study 1 supported our hypothesis that as crimes increase in seriousness, people require a restorative justice procedure that also has a possible retributive component (i.e. a prison sentence). Study 1 also demonstrated that individuals assigned lower prison sentences for offenders who successfully completed a restorative procedure as compared to a traditional court procedure. The results from Study 2 replicated those from Study 1, as well as demonstrating that offenders who failed to successfully complete the restorative procedure received no reduction in prison sentence. These findings suggest that in order for citizens to view a restorative justice procedure as an acceptable alternative to the traditional court system for serious crimes, the procedure must allow for the option of some retributive measures.

Does recent physical and sexual victimization affect further substance use for adult drug-involved offenders?

This study examined whether physical and sexual victimization experiences were related to further substance use for a sample of drug-involved adult offenders and whether this increase could be attributed to depression experienced after the victimization occurred. A total of 674 men and 284 women from the longitudinal Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) were included in analyses. The study included 23 drug court and 6 comparison sites. Study participants completed three interviews: at baseline enrollment and then at 6 and 18 months after baseline. Multilevel path modeling showed that physical and sexual victimization experiences during the year before the baseline interview were associated with further substance use at 18 months and that this relationship was mediated by depression. All relationships held for both men and women, and beyond the contribution of several control variables, including drug court program participation. Public health and criminal justice personnel working with substance-using offenders should screen individuals for victimization-related trauma and, if identified, provide assistance to evaluate and improve such individuals' mental health and, subsequently, decrease their likelihood of using substances.     

A glimpse into the role of personal values within the restorative justice process: a qualitative study with restorative justice facilitators

Restorative justice is a process whereby offenders and their victims communicate to address the harm caused by the crime. Currently, there is little research looking at what characterises victims and offenders who are willing to participate in this process, who benefits, and what changes occur after participating. Personal values may be important in understanding such questions because they can influence human behaviour, appraisals of behaviour, and can change following life experiences. Hence, the aim of this study was to investigate the role that the values within Schwartz’s value theory may have in answering these questions. This was accomplished through a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 restorative justice facilitators. Consistently, the motivations they observed for both victims and offenders participating in restorative justice included themes of prosocial values. Additionally, prosocial values were among those highlighted as being important for the realisation of the benefits of restorative justice. There was also some preliminary evidence that this process may change what values are important for both victims and offenders. Overall, these findings have implications for restorative justice providers; a greater understanding of motivations, who will benefit, and how restorative justice can be presented to appeal to a wide audience.     

Social Capital, Rehabilitation, Tradition: Support for Restorative Justice in Japan and Australia

This paper investigates the attitudes and beliefs that the public hold about criminal behaviour in Japanese and Australian society, with a view to uncovering sources of resistance to, and support for, restorative justice. The study draws on a survey of 1,544 respondents from Japan and 1,967 respondents from Australia. In both societies, restorative justice met with greater acceptance among those who were (1) strong in social capital, (2) believed in offender reintegration and rehabilitation, (3) saw benefits for victims in forgiveness, and (4) were advocates for victims?? voices being heard and amends made. The alternative ??just deserts?? and deterrence models for dealing with crime were grounded in attitudes of punitiveness and fear of moral decay, and reservations about the value of reintegrating and rehabilitating offenders. Like restorative justice supporters, ??just deserts?? and deterrence supporters expressed concern that victims?? voices be heard and amends made. Winning public support for competing institutional arrangements may depend on who does best in meeting expectations for meeting the needs of victims.     

REASON FOR EMOTION: REINVENTING JUSTICE WITH THEORIES,INNOVATIONS, AND RESEARCH—THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 2002 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS*

Criminology was born in the age of reason to apply “reason” to justice, tempering the expression of moral indignation with the economics of deterrence. Modern criminology is now poised for reinventing justice around the emotions of victims, offenders, and society. One prime example is restorative justice. Others include wider use of biomedical mental health treatments for offenders, programs to make justice officials more aware of the emotional impact of their words on citizens, and programs to help justice officials manage their own emotions. Research can advance theory and innovations as a basis for a new paradigm of “emotionally intelligent justice.”     

“She's Way Too Good to Lose”: An Evaluation of Honolulu's Girls Court

This research evaluates the efficacy of a gender-specific, problem-solving court for girl offenders. Official statistics, interview data, and focus group data are utilized to determine whether the court is achieving its stated goals of reducing recidivism, risky behaviors, and confinement for the girls who attend this court program. The present research demonstrates that the program does seem to be effective in terms of reducing both recidivism and risky behavior as well as increasing the development of prosocial and healthy relationships. The article concludes with some lessons learned from the implementation of this court program as well as ideas for future research.     

Proportionality in Sentencing and the Restorative Justice Paradigm: ‘Just Deserts’ for Victims and Defendants Alike?

The doctrine of proportionality seeks to limit arbitrary and capricious punishment in order to ensure that offenders are punished according to their ‘just desert’. In Australian sentencing law, proportionality goes some way toward achieving this ‘balanced’ approach by requiring a court to consider various and often competing interests in formulating a sentence commensurate with offence seriousness and offender culpability. Modification of sentencing law by the introduction of victim impact statements or the requirement that sentencing courts take explicit account of the harm done to the victim and community has generated debate, however, as to the extent to which offenders may be now subject to unjustified, harsher punishments. This article proposes that in order to overcome the controversy of the modification of offender and victim rights in sentencing, sentencing courts adhere to a doctrine of proportionality that is explicitly sensitive to the needs of victims and offenders in a model of restorative justice that focuses on the consequences of crime as against the individual, rather than the state. The extent to which proportionality, as the current constitutive principle of Australian sentencing law, may be modified to better encourage a dialogue between victim and offender is discussed.     

Diversion in the Canadian Juvenile Justice System: A Tale of Two Cities

Abstract The present study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of diversion in the juvenile justice system by comparing two different communities. One community has a formalized, well-established diversion program whereas the other community utilizes the Family Court to a much greater extent. Preliminary data suggests no difference in recidivism for a matched sample of young offenders. The implications of the study are discussed in terms of future research on diversion and the need for appropriate comparison groups. In the past two decades, diversion programs have been one of the major innovations within the juvenile justice system. These programs have attempted to divert juveniles from the formal process involving court hearings by creating alternative interventions at the policy and community level. The basic premises underlying these programs is that the formal court system may do more harm than good by labeling youngsters as “delinquent” and rendering them more vulnerable by involvement in an adversary process (Reference numbers 4, 12, 14). Diversion programs that provide youngsters with an opportunity to make restitution or perform community services are compensation for their misbehavior are seen as more immediate and meaningful consequences than awaiting a formal adversarial court hearing (5, 13). However, diversion programs have not met with universal acceptance. Critics have pointed out that programs, in fact, “widen the justice net” by processing children who never would have gone to court anyway (3, 7). As well, concerns have been raised as to the protection of clients' legal rights in the diversion program and the dangers of “double jeopardy” in the event that failure in a program could lead to an even more severe disposition by the court (8, 9). The debate over the effectiveness of diversion programs has been fueled by the lack of research. Although there are many studies that suggest the success of this approach (1, 6, 10), the research has suffered in its credibility due to the absence of appropriate control groups. The present study attempted to fill this significant void in previous evaluations of diversion, by comparing two communities in southwestern Ontario with different approaches to juvenile justice. The cities of Windsor and London are approximately 200 km apart, with comparative populations (200,000 vs 250,000). Windsor has well established diversion programs with substantial support of community agencies, the police force and Crown Attorney's office. This program is described in detail elsewhere (2, 11) so will not be outlined here. London has no such program and consequently has an obviously greater number of youngsters handled through the formalized juvenile court. The authors hoped to capitalize on this “naturally occurring difference” in approach between the two cities by examining the rate of recidivism of young offenders as well as determine their attitudes (and that of their parents) toward the interventions they received. The hypotheses in the pilot studies outlined were that the diversion program youth in Windsor would have a more positive attitude about their intervention and would be less likely to recidivate than a matched sample of youth in London, based on the theoretical underpinning of diversion as well as the results of previous outcome studies.