Transcript Youth Justice in the Community

The Good, The Bad and the Community:
Restorative Justice
Dan Ellingworth
Troubles of Youth
2nd February 2009
Lecture Outline
• Principles and Theories of Restorative
Justice
• The Referral Order and Youth Offender
Panels
• Evaluation
Restorative Justice:
a critique of traditional justice
•
•
•
•
Crime = violation of the state
Social injury result in another social injury
Community represented by the State
Dependence on professionals: offender and
victim passive
• No encouragement for repentance and
forgiveness
Traditional Justice
Offenders
The State
Problem: breaking the law
Restorative Justice
Offenders
Victims
Community
Problem: Conflict between offender, victim and
community
Restorative Justice Definitions (?)
Restorative justice is a process whereby parties with a stake in a
specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the
aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.
(Marshall, 1999)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crime = violation of one person by another
Offender encouraged to take responsibility
Negotiation replaces adversarial style
Focus on repair of social injury
Direct involvement of participants
Community involvement
Restorative Justice Practices
Flexibility, Problem Solving, Voluntary
Some Key Theorists
• Howard Zehr
– retributive justice and restorative justice seen as diametrically opposed
– emphasised benefits for victims, and the active participant of offenders
– not (initially) as concerned with issues of community involvement
• Nils Christie
– traditional justice “stole” the conflicts from the injured parties: advocated
the return of conflict to the two parties
– a shift back to civil rather than criminal justice
• Martin Wright
– concerned to encourage the integration of traditional and restorative justice
– emphasised the importance of community involvement as a way of
appeasing calls to public-interest more associated with traditional justice
• John Braithwaite
– reintegrative shaming
– a distinction drawn between alienating shaming and reintegrative shaming
Youth Offender Panels and Referral
Orders
• Established by Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act
1999
• Referral Orders
– given to a young person who pleads guilty to an offence when it is
their first time in court.
– not given if offence is so serious that the court decides a custodial
sentence is absolutely necessary, or the offence is relatively minor
where a fine or absolute discharge would suffice
• Youth Offender Panel
– Two volunteers, plus a member of YOT
– A contract is drawn up with agreement between offender and
victim lasting between 3 months and a year
– The conviction is ‘spent’ once the contract has been successfully
completed.
• 6000 cases in 2006/7
Aims
• Diversion
– early, non-stigmatising, interventions
– reduce the need for custody
– Reduced re-offending
• Demonstrating Impact of Offending
– challenging “Techniques of Neutralization” (Matza)
• Effective Remedies for Victims
– psychological and material
• Community Involvement
Victims’ experiences of YOPs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crawford and Newburn (2003)
Evaluation of pilot programmes
Total 696 cases
No victim - 128 cases
Identifiable Victim – 544 cases
Victim Attended – 71 cases (13%)
Victim contact not particularly effective
– (2005-6 87% of victims contacted: 48% accepted)
• 53% of victims ‘would have attended given the
opportunity’
Victims’ experiences of YOPs
• Initial reaction: 30% voiced nervousness and
apprehension
• Few victims expected ‘a result’: most expressed a
hope for acknowledgement / apology
• 35% thought should attend ‘out of duty’
• 43% thought victims should have a say in
resolution
• 60% attended ‘to see how they worked’
How sorry did you feel for the
offender?
70
Before the panel
After the Panel
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Not at all
A Little
Somewhat
Very
Victim’s Respect for the CJS
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Down a lot
Down a
Little
Not
Changed
Up a little
Up a lot
Evaluations of RJ initiatives
Shapland, J et al (2004) Implementing Restorative Justice schemes Home Office Online
Report 32/04
• Victim involvement higher where offender was young
• Little representation by the community
• Offenders admitted a lot or quite a lot of responsibility for the
offence in 60% of the conferences observed, with 11%
admitting only a little or no responsibility.
• Disapproval of the offence and shaming of the offender in
most meetings. Apologies almost always offered, but
offenders recognised this was insufficient in serious offences.
Explicit forgiveness of offender rare.
Sherman and Strang (2008) Restorative Justice (YJB)
• Evidence of effective outcomes
– RJ is effective at reducing victim trauma and stress
– Inconclusive evidence about reduction in future offending
Limitations of RJ
• Reliant on voluntary cooperation
– what happens when one, two or all three parties are
unwilling to cooperate?
• Always reliant on traditional justice where RJ fails
for one reason or another
• Reliant on already existing degrees of community
integration:
– capacity for communities to be supportive and reintegrating, rather than exclusionary are dependent on a
range of resources available to different communities
• Conflict with other CJ agendas (eg. ASBOs?)
Key Issues in the development of RJ
• Defendants’ Rights
– wrongful convictions, and particularly disproportionate
punishments
– overly punitive victims?
• Victims’ rights
– possibly left aggrieved
– actually there to serve a role more related to the
offender?
• Truly Voluntary?
• Justice and Fairness
– comparability across different cases?