Looking Back to the Future: Threats to the Success of Restorative Justice in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed an entrenchment of restorative justice principles and practices in the youth and adult criminal justice systems of the United Kingdom. This research presents a comparative analysis of the findings of two empirical studies—one of a police restorative cautioning scheme conducted 15 years ago, and the second a contemporary study of youth offender panels. In this research, we argue that restorative justice practices in the United Kingdom are repeating history, rather than learning from it. Specifically, we argue that if restorative justice programs continue to proliferate with the same shortcomings—most notably, inadequate victim involvement, failure to provide a genuine role for the community, and targeting only relatively low-level crime—the future for restorative justice in the United Kingdom is likely to be bleak.     

Rethinking Prison Disciplinary Processes: A Potential Future for Restorative Justice

Abstract

The movement for restorative justice (RJ) has struggled with marginalization on the soft end of the criminal justice system where the threat of net widening and iatrogenesis looms large. To realize the full potential of RJ as an alternative philosophy of justice, restorative practices need to expand beyond the world of adolescent and small-level offenses into the deeper end of the justice system. Disciplinary hearings inside of adult prisons may be a strategic space to advance this expansion. This article presents findings from a study of prison discipline in four U.K. prisons. The findings strongly suggest that in their current form such disciplinary proceedings are viewed by prisoners as lacking in legitimacy. Although modeled after the adversarial system of the criminal court, the adjudications were instead universally derided as “kangaroo courts” lacking the basic elements of procedural justice. Based on these findings, we argue that RJ interventions may offer a viable redress to these problems of legitimacy which, if successful, would have ramifications that extend well beyond the prison walls.     

Repositioning Restorative Justice in Europe

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, the European Union (EU) has invested considerable amount of resources in supporting policies and legislation that promote mediation and other restorative justice (RJ) practices at the national and regional level. Alongside these developments a series of legal safeguards, standards, and regulations were introduced to mainstream restorative justice in European criminal justice systems. While we are far from claiming that a unified restorative justice model exists across European countries, the standardization of restorative justice through top-down approaches raises serious concerns around its viability as a community-born ethos. This article draws from the findings of an EU-funded research project that focused on the implementation of the restorative justice articles of the. Victims’ Directive. The article argues that if restorative justice is not repositioned in Europe through innovation and bottom-up structures of community, unregulated, unregistered, and localized projects, it will soon face its demise. The mainstreaming, regulation, and state control of restorative justice in Europe must be balanced against what Nils Christie identified as its original intention of returning conflicts re property.     

Four Challenges in the Future of Restorative Justice

Abstract

Restorative justice (RJ) emerged in the late 1970s as an alternative to conventional youth and criminal justice practices. Since this time, RJ has experienced rapid growth in theory and practice. At the same time, much of this growth has come from expansion in lower-end criminal justice responses to crime, and in the increasing use of the term “restorative” for a widening host of practices and interventions. RJ has also faced problems related to its increasing institutionalization, resulting in divergence from earlier aims and goals. In this article, we set forth what we see as the four biggest challenges facing the future of RJ, namely problems related to definition, institutionalization, displacement, and relevance of RJ practices. We follow with discussion of possible future directions of RJ.     

What is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question

Abstract

It has become commonplace to say that restorative justice cannot be defined. I argue that restorative justice can and must be defined concretely as a justice mechanism. I develop this argument with four points: (1) restorative justice is not a type of justice, it is a justice mechanism; (2) retributive justice is not a type of justice or a justice mechanism; (3) restorative justice is one of many justice mechanisms under an innovative justice umbrella; and (4) restorative justice can be defined. The way forward is to assess and compare a variety of justice mechanisms, which reside on a continuum from conventional to innovative. In time, the justice mechanisms studied may come to matter more than the concept of restorative justice.     

Community Participation in Restorative Justice: Rituals,Reintegration, and Quasi-Professionalization

Abstract

Community has long been identified as the key third party in restorative justice processes. However, when it comes to both theorizing community in restorative justice and the actual practice of community participation, conceptual clarity is lacking. A careful reading of the sociological literature on restorative justice and community point to two main reasons why we want to encourage community participation: the creation of effective ritual and offender reintegration. In this article, we present findings from an empirical study of conferencing. We explore varieties of community participation and discuss the benefits and tensions that arise when community participation becomes a formalized element of a mainstream restorative justice practice.     

Māori,Family Group Conferencing and the Mystifications of Restorative Justice

Abstract

The Family Group Conferencing (FGC) forum is often presented by policy entrepreneurs and advocates as indicative of the ability of restorative justice (RJ) to accommodate the cultural and justice needs of diverse populations. In this article, we present recent empirical research from one of the authors on Māori experiences of the forum. Drawing from this research, as well as other secondary sources, we demonstrate that far from being an exemplar of culturally appropriate justice practice, the forum is experienced by some Māori participants as one that encloses Indigenous culture and Indigenous participants within a Eurocentric, formulaic, and standardized process. The final section of our article reveals changes to the development of restorative policies and the practice in the Aotearoa New Zealand context that Māori participants believe are necessary to make the movement, and interventions such as the FGC, an empowering experience for Māori.     

Justice,Not Jailbreak: The Context and Consequence of the First Step Act

ABSTRACT

The First Step Act, a legislative endeavor half nearly a decade in the making and advocated for by President Trump, represented the most significant easing of federal criminal punishment to date. This article discusses the historical antecedents for the prison and sentencing reform legislation and discusses its path through the 115^th Congress of the United States.     

How Surrogate Impact Panels Function in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study

ABSTRACT

Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be an urgent social problem, despite decades of intervention and prevention efforts. Restorative justice programs (e.g., victim impact panels) may be a useful addition to intimate partner violence (IPV) intervention, but it is unclear how these panels operate and to what extent they are consistent with restorative justice models. This naturalistic study of IPV surrogate impact panels used ethnographic observation of panels (n = 18), archival analysis of audience responses to the panel (N = 287), and focus groups and interviews (k = 4) with IPV survivors, an audience member, and batterer intervention providers to investigate these gaps. Findings suggest the panels manifest interactional processes consistent with restorative justice principles. Implications, limitations, and future aims of research on these panels are discussed.     

Exploring the Overlap between Victimization and Offending among Women in Sex Work

Abstract

This study examines reported victimization and reported offending of women involved in sex work in the United States in order to identify demographic and behavioral overlap between women who presented to the justice system as victims and offenders, and between women identified as trafficked persons or as prostitutes. Results indicate significant offending and victimization experiences among women in the sex industry. Among women who presented both victimization and offending (victim-offenders)—compared to those who were exclusively victims or exclusively offenders and those without such experiences—substance abuse problems, injuries, and multiple arrests were proportionally higher. Distinctive behavioral differences between trafficked women and prostitutes were not evident. Policy implications for the justice system are discussed.     

Restorative Justice Models in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence: Reviewingthe Evidence

Despite increased public awareness and professional intervention, men's violence against their female partners continues to be a grave reality that challenges those involved to seek better solutions. In recent years, restorative justice has become an established alternative to the criminal justice system for dealing with a number of crimes, and is now starting to be applied to cases of intimate partner violence. However, given the unique social, relational, and psychological contexts of these crimes, doubts are also emerging around the appropriateness of these applications. This paper addresses this debate by reviewing the evidence supporting the use of restorative justice models for various populations, and their ability to address the particular concerns of those affected by intimate partner violence. It explores the fit between restorative justice principles and processes, and what is known about the needs and capacities of this group of victims, offenders, and the communities to which they belong. It is concluded that while the restorative justice model shows promise, there is insufficient evidence at this time to support its use in situations of intimate partner violence.     

Full and Open Competition in Public Procurement: Values and Ethics in Contracting Opportunity

ABSTRACT

Governments have sought to respond to increasing pressures to accomplish aims with efficiency and at low cost. A perception of the potential for corruption and waste of public resources has been met with calls for transparency and accountability. Competition is believed to lead to impartial, optimal outcomes, but attention paid to competition in the literature suggests that the benefits are not universally clear. This paper considers ‘full and open competition’ as a policy promise, ethical obligation, and a matter of justice, drawing upon work of John Rawls and others, in the United States case. The research question is: What do Federal procurement data tell us about the nature of full and open competition in practice? This study draws upon contract data available from the U.S. Federal government, for fiscal years from 2015 to 2018. Through an ordinal regression, it is suggested that variation in the extent of competition results in part from size of project, size of the business (or potential business) receiving the project, and the industry classification, particularly in cases centering on commercial acquisitions. While ‘full and open competition’ is frequently employed, the difference between the normative value of the concept in statute, and practical outcomes in implementation, is clear. This difference has consequences for both vendors and the government.     

NEW FRONTIERS IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ABSTRACT

This symposium brings together seven papers pertaining to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR, denoting non-judicial means of settling disagreements, has become the dominant mechanism for resolving disagreements. Its expansion should continue, fueled by the inherent deficiencies of the judicial system and by the changing nature of disputed issues that lend themselves more readily to these types of dispute resolution mechanisms. The first three papers focus on resolving environmental and natural resource disputes. These include a survey of American environmental lawyers, a case study of the World Commission on Dams, and a methodology aimed at uncovering “win-win” solutions. The fourth paper analyzes the new mediator training program of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, an American governmental agency which is primarily charged with improving labor-management relations. The final three papers discuss ADR as a community-based approach to resolving civil and criminal justice cases as well as family disputes. These include two case studies of aboriginal dispute resolution systems (one from Canada and one from the United States), and an empirical comparison of forty-four criminal justice dispute resolution systems throughout the world.     

Taking Stock of Drug Courts: Do They Work?

ABSTRACT

Although researchers, policymakers, and practitioners alike have long known about the established link between substance abuse and criminal behavior, criminal justice agencies in the United States are still tasked with managing an influx of individuals who display symptoms of abuse and dependence. By the late 1980s, the drug court model emerged as an innovative response to this problem, and this reform has since proliferated to such an extent that it is the most common type of problem-solving court in America. Still, there remains much variation in how drug courts are implemented across jurisdictions, which can have strong implications for the outcomes among the courts’ participants. In this review, we summarize the key research on drug court implementation, followed by an assessment of whether they can be said to “work” in terms of reducing criminal behavior and relapse among adults. We conclude that the model remains an evidence-based practice and suggest some directions for future work, including increased emphasis on theory and causal dynamics and key measurement issues.     

The “Independent Variable” in Restorative Justice: Theory-Based Standards for Evaluating the Impact and Integrity of Victim Sensitive Process (Part II)

For almost two decades restorative justice practices have demonstrated positive impacts on crime victim satisfaction when compared to court and other adversarial processes. Although these practices have by no means addressed the myriad needs of crime victims, researchers and policy makers have puzzled about how to interpret these generally positive findings. We suggest that remaining difficulties in concluding that positive findings are a result of restorative process rather than some other factor (e.g., procedural justice) are due largely to (1) the lack of clear standards for gauging the integrity, or “restorativeness,” of interventions and (2) the failure to articulate logical mechanisms (i.e., intervention theories) that connect practices to immediate and intermediate outcomes, and these outcomes to long-term changes in the well-being of victims, offenders, and communities. In part 1 of a two-part discussion previously published in this journal, we described alternative definitions of restorative justice and outlined three core principles that provide a useful normative theory of restorative justice. In part 2, we focus on the “intervening variable” in restorative justice, utilizing qualitative data from a national case study to illustrate some potential immediate and intermediate outcomes of restorative justice practice on victims. We also discuss the implications of these outcomes for intervention theory and future research.     

When do People Value Rehabilitation and Restorative Justice Over the Punishment of Offenders?

The authors explored the characteristics of individuals that affect their attitudes toward restorative justice-—in which offenders, victims, and communities meet to redress the damage the offence had caused. Across three studies, participants completed questionnaires that assessed whether they believe that people in general, or offenders in particular, can change fundamentally as well as attitudes toward restorative justice, rehabilitation, and punishment. In one study, the questionnaire also included measures of social dominance orientation, goal orientation, and future clarity. Generally, participants who believed that offenders can change fundamentally were more likely to agree to participate in restorative justice meetings and endorse rehabilitation over punishment. Yet, the belief that individuals in general can change fundamentally was not significantly associated with these attitudes toward alternative responses to crime. Social dominance orientation was inversely, and a learning orientation and future clarity were positively, associated with this belief that offenders can change. Thus, interventions that diminish inequality in income, privileges, and influence—and thus curb a social dominance orientation—may foster an openness toward restorative justice. Initiatives that continually reward people who gradually develop their expertise, and thus promote a learning orientation, should also foster this openness toward alternatives to custodial sentences.     

Community Stakeholder Responses to Countering Violent Extremism Locally

ABSTRACT

In the United States, despite federal efforts to empower communities to form local governance networks to develop and implement collaborative countering violent extremism (CVE) programs, local CVE governance networks are rare. Why do CVE governance networks emerge within only some communities? I argue that three factors—interest in CVE, capacity to participate, and facilitation—determine the prospects for the emergence of a CVE governance network within a community. The article uses a matching technique to identify and compare the community stakeholder responses to CVE in two communities—Houston, TX and Columbus, OH. Survey research of stakeholders who participated in Houston and stakeholders most likely to participate in Columbus but did not highlights the importance of the three factors. By focusing on these drivers of collaborative governance, the article provides an explanation for the lack of CVE collaboration in the United States.     

Putting a Price on Justice: How to Incentivize the Downsizing of Prison Populations

Abstract

We argue that the proximate reason the United States overuses prisons is that for local prosecutors and judges, sending offenders to prison is “free”; the state pays. By completely subsidizing prison use, states incentivize local overuse of prisons. State prisons in the United States are common pool resources, so options to managing common pool resources used in fisheries and environmental protection may have applications to corrections. We propose, for this purpose, seven options: six involve pricing systems and each having several variants. Each approach, in its own way, puts a price on justice. We also outline other changes in correctional and sentencing practices policy makers need to make to implement these approaches. We anticipate potential consequences, good and bad, of incentivizing justice. Finally, we fully expect our proposals to incur the ire of some political idealists on the right and the left. Nevertheless, for policy makers who are concerned about practical solutions to the grave injustices and high costs of mass incarcerations, our portfolio of options should be useful.     

“Walking in her shoes”: The Impact of Victim Impact Panels on Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

Restorative justice models have had success with some issues within the criminal justice system; however, advocates and researchers within the intimate partner violence practice community have been reluctant to embrace this model. Criminal justice responses for intimate partner violence continue to be founded on a blend of retributive and rehabilitative justice models. Despite this reluctance, use of the restorative justice intervention of victim impact panels, may have targeted utility for increasing perpetrators’ empathy for their victims. The author 2examined responses from perpetrators who were mandated to participate in a victim impact panel experience as part of the coordinated community system response to intimate partner violence.     

The Spiritual Components of Restorative Justice

The concept of spirituality in restorative justice practice is recognized as important but is often fuzzy and vaguely understood. This study did a content analysis of restorative justice texts and found nine distinct components of spirituality: transformation, connectedness/belonging, common human bond, repentance, forgiveness, making right a wrong, balance/harmony, rituals, and unexplained spiritual phenomenon. The conceptual clarification of the relationship between spirituality and restorative justice gives mediators/facilitators of restorative justice dialogue more tools to deepen their interactions with victims, offenders, and community members. Furthermore, delineation of these nine components offers researchers a framework for the development of instruments or tools that can be used to assess participants' experiences in restorative justice dialogues.