Which Restorative Justice Programs are Most Effective?

1
Which Restorative Justice Programs are Most
Effective?

• Jason Carr
• Megan Chambers
• Morgan Jerri

2
Restorative Justice

• Seeks to
• Identify take steps to repair harm,
• Involve all stakeholders,
• Transform the traditional relationship between
  communities government in responding to crime.

3
Common Programs

• Restitution and Community Service
• Family Group Conferences
• Victim Impact Panels
• Victim-Offender Mediation

4
Restitution Community Service

• Most common established forms of restorative
  justice.
• 3 Major Types
• Community Service
• Monetary Restitution
• Direct Service to the Victims

5
Effectiveness of Restitution

• Research suggests restitution programs can lower
  recidivism.
• Utah juvenile study
• Schneider Schneider study found similar results
  in adults
• Formal sanctions vs. informal sanctions

6
Downfalls of Restitution

• The belief that all offenders are indigent
  cannot afford restitution
• Orders are not first in the priority of
  court-ordered payments follow behind court
  costs
• Lack of interagency agreements stipulating who is
  responsible for monitoring, enforcing,
  collecting, distributing restitution
• Cynicism of victims service providers about
  efforts to collect restitution.

7
Family Group Conferences

• Facilitated discussions that allow those most
  affected by a crime to discuss the impact of the
  crime decide how the offender should be held
  accountable.

8
Family Group Conferences

• Based on reintegrative shaming
• Argues that people are deterred from crime by 2
  informal forms of social control
• Fears of social disapproval
• Conscience

9
Conference Process

• Victim and offender brought to mediator to
  discuss incident harm it caused.
• Forces offender to see human side of their
  crime.
• By the end, an agreement is made on how the
  offender can make reparations to victim.
• Typically involves an apology some form of
  restitution

10
Pros Cons

• Research supports it, but it is only currently
  used on juveniles.
• 3 experiments found promising results
• 1. Bethleham, PA study
• 2. Canberra, Australia-
• Reintegrative Shaming
• Experiments
• 3. Indianapolis-Restorative Justice
• Experiment

11
Victim Impact Panels

• Forums for crime victims to explain the
  real-world impact of crime to their offenders.
• Different from group conferences because it does
  not involve the victim directly, instead uses
  surrogate victims..

12
About the Panel

• Used for
• Property crimes, physical
• assault, domestic violence,
• domestic violence, child abuse,
• elder abuse
• Usually has 3-4 victim speakers who speak for 15
  minutes each

13
Research Shows

• Limited Contradictory
• One study of 834 DUI offenders who participated
  showed less signs of recidivism.
• Another study of 813 DWI offenders found no
  difference in those who attended those who did
  not.
• Research does show high levels of victim
  satisfaction.

14
Victim-Offender Mediation

• A process that provides victims the opportunity
  to meet their offenders in a safe structured
  setting for dialogue, negotiation, problem
  solving.
• Has 2 goals
• 1. Hold offenders accountable for their
• behavior, learn full impact of their
• crime
• 2. To empower the victim
• Helps develop empathy in offender

15
In Conclusion

• All restorative justice programs have the same
  purpose of not determining guilt, but rather
  teaching the offenders about the harm it caused.
• Have proven more effective for victims in terms
  of increased satisfaction less fear of
  revictimization.
• We believe the best restorative justice programs
  are family group conferences victim-mediation
  panels.

16
Bibliography

• Durkheim, Ãmile. 1903. Attachment to Social
  Groups. In Joseph E. Jacoby (ed.) Classics of
  Criminology, Second Edition (1994). Illinois
  Waveland Press, Inc.
• Hansen, K.J. 1991. "An Exploratory Study of the
  Extension of Local Empowerment Through Community
  Policing." Unpublished paper.
• Lindsay, B., and D. McGillis 1986. "Citywide
  Community Crime Prevention An Assessment of the
  Seattle Program." In D.P. Rosenbaum. Community
  Crime Prevention Does It Work? Beverly Hills,
  Calif. Sage Publications, Inc., 46-67.
• Mazerolle, L J. Price and J. Roehl. 2000.
  "Civil Remedies A Randomized Filed Trial in
  Oakland, California." Evaluation Review
  24(2)212-41.
• Pfau, Michael, and Roxanne Parrott. 1993.
  Persuasive Communication Campaigns.
  Massachusetts Allyn and Bacon.
• Pransky, J. 1991. Prevention The Critical Need.
  Springfield, Mo. Burrell Foundation and Paradigm
  Press.
• Sampson, R. 1995. "The Community." In J.Q. Wilson
  and J. Petersilia (eds.). Crime. San Francisco,
  Calif. ICS Press, Inc.
• Sherman, L. 1997. "Communities and Crime
  Prevention." Preventing Crime What Works, What
  Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the United
  States Congress. L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D.
  MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway
  (eds.). Prepared for the National Institute of
  Justice by the Department of Criminology and
  Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.