Restorative justice system was also designed to restore social harmony and repair the damages of social conflicts. However it begins with repairing the harm suffered by victims and assisting the reformation of offenders (White & Haynes, 1996). It also emphasizes the way to repair the social connections between offenders, victims and the community. While retributive justice focuses on fixing blame and punishment, restorative justice focuses more on reforming offenders by strengthening their ties with the community to prevent recidivism (White & Haynes, 1996). In the existing justice system, the establishment of guilt is a 'one sharp end' shaming ceremony with no reintegration measure to decertify the deviance label for preventing stigmatization (Willliams, 2001). Once offenders have been labeled as criminal, the label would be attached to them, while other identities would be completely excluded in the shaming process. In the words of Braithwaite and Mugford (1994), the process of guilt establishment in the existing system has been summarized as 'disapproval-degradation-exclusion' (page 142). This process, for some offenders is almost irreversible. (Erikson, 1962). Consequently, some offenders would seek solace and communality in deviant subcultures, in which their deviant status is seen in a positive light and they can receive acceptance and support. Once offenders have put themselves in such a subculture, they are more likely to commit further offences simply to maintain their deviant status and identity (Marsh & Crow, 1998).
Therefore based on the restorative justice sytem principles, a number of schemes were introduced (that have subsequently had very positive feedback) to aid victim reparation and offender rehabilitation; amoungst them compensation and victim-offender mediation.
During the early 1970’s, a number of groups emanated in the USA were interested with reparation or compensation for victims. The figures agreed that punishments should be harsher and that those responsible for the crime should pay. This notion was then adopted internationally by the United Nations in 1985 by introducing a charter for victims’ rights, called the ‘Declaration on the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power’. The Council of Europe also correspondingly addressed the problems of victims’ rights and produced a convention called ‘The European Convention on The Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime’ (introduced in 1983 however placed into effect 1990). Guidelines were also published ‘Recommendation on the Position of the victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure’ (1985). One of the earliest compensation schemes was set up in New Zealand in 1963. They introduced a State compensation scheme. Britain followed suit and a year later also introduced a State compensation scheme for victims of violent crime. This scheme was non-statutory and therefore was only made lawful in the Criminal Justice Act in 1988. Although this was introduced, a clear distinction should be made that the victims had no rights to compensation and that the payment was at the discretion of The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB). This was introduced more for the satisfaction of the State rather than in mind for the victim. This has been updated more recently in 1995 when the CICB set out a statutory tariff for injuries as well as an additional payment against expenses and for loss of earnings or earning capacity.
Hundreds of experiments have taken place across the world with restorative justice especially with young offenders (Galaway and Hudson, 1996). Most of these have been conducted by criminal justice professionals, officials, voluntary workers and reformists, who were already working within the system and therefore had the power to instigate change (Cayley, 1998). The origins of present day restorative justice campaign have been recorded back to Canadian experiments with victim-offender mediation in Ontario in 1974 (Zehr, 1990). Thus the Victim Offender Reconciliation Programmes were reborn as it was actually an ancient way of dealing with crime. In this programme restorative justice is taken in the form of a personal encounter with the victim and the offender, eased by a mediator. The first ‘sentencing circle’, as it was labelled, was recorded in 1992 in Canada. This case was so successful, that the ‘aboriginal form of justice’ has been more widely adopted. Many were also influenced by John Braithwaite’s theory of ‘re-integrative shaming’ (1989). He argued and clearly pointed out the overlap of restorative justice processes and public safety. He noted “restorative justice can remove crime prevention from its marginal status in the criminal justice system and can deliver the motivation and widespread community participation crime prevention needs to work” (page 78). He also argues that deterrence and incapacitation are more likely to be effective strategies for reducing crime if they are grounded in restorative justice principles.
Victim-Offender Mediation was studied and evaluated largely by Umbreit (1994). He completed a multi-site study and found that although restitution was a motivating factor for victim participation in mediation sessions, the victims were more interested in talking about the impact of the crime with the offender and the offender appreciated the opportunity to talk to the victim. At the moment this form of justice seems to be very promising but only in a response to non-violent crime. Maxwell and Morris (1993) noted that families of offenders in these programs are more commonly and actively involved in the justice process than families of offenders going through the standard process. All participating parties benefited from this method as victims experienced levels of satisfaction with the process and high levels of compliance were visible from the offenders. This appears to be the strongest of all the models in providing education in improving behaviour. However there has been concern expressed over the role of victims in this model. Some concerns are that too much emphasis is placed on offender education that the needs of the victim may be overshadowed, (Umbreit & Zehr, 1996) and (Maxwell & Morris, 1993). Umbreit and Zehr (1996) also cite that there is a lack of concern with victim empowerment, lack of protection against retaliation and abuse. However recent studies have found higher rates of victim participation and satisfaction (Johnstone, 2002).
Several benefits are apparent as restorative justice is less costly than punitive justice, (Braithwaite, 1999). However these claims have not been compared with cautions or fines but with the cost of the courts, therefore this is not a fair comparison. Criminal justice personnel and agencies also benefit as they get a chance to rehabilitate the offender thus resolving the harm of the crime and reducing a repeat felony. Although there are benefits there are also limitations. Some individuals argue that some crimes are far more serious and require more than compensation and reparation (Miers, D, 2001a). However others, such as Braithwaite (1996) oppose the current punitive system and express a conflicting view to the latter and anticipate marginalisation or abolishment of the current system, replaced with restorative justice.
In the United Kingdom there have been a few studies conducted on schemes based upon the notion of the restorative justice process. Miers et al (2001a) conducted a 15-month study in Great Britain, which aimed to study the effectiveness of restorative schemes conducted over a period of time. It was funded by the government aimed at discovering ‘what works’ in reducing crime and reoffending. The principle aims of this study was to identify which elements or which combinations of elements in restorative justice work and which are most effective at reducing crime and at what cost. The second aim was to provide recommendations for best practice and for schemes to be mainstreamed. Various counties had schemes in place for offenders and victims, and these were researched by the investigators with various methods of fieldwork. Their findings concluded that each scheme were diverse in their understandings of the notion of restorative justice, and also in their degree of focus on victims and offenders. The schemes were found to be weak and fragile and also exposed to funding cuts. A conflicting view expressed by the victims was one of favour towards the concept. Another study worthy of consideration was also carried out by Miers et al (2001b). They conducted an International Review of Restorative justice, conducted by evaluating many schemes set up worldwide. All countries studied found a common theme, which was that the future should focus more towards victim offender mediation programs.
Finally to refer back to the question, evidence suggests that although restorative justice seems to be working there has been very little research carried out on maintaining positive attitudes and the offending behaviour of the criminal. It has been found to be effective and high levels of satisfaction and participation have been viewed. Mason (2000) notes “that restorative justice meets a community need, that is beneficial to the community and that it is here to stay” (page 1). In addition to this it must be noted that leading proponents do realise that there are shortcomings in the evaluations of any positive effects. As a result Strang (2001) notes that
“Even in relation to programs in the justice setting, where most of the evaluative research has taken place, we do not know yet very much about how effective the restorative approach may prove to be in reducing re-offending; this is especially difficult to estimate when programs are mostly directed at a population of offenders whose offences are minor and criminal careers brief. Large claims of ‘successes among those who may never have re-offended anyway confuse and distract policymakers”. (page 38)
Therefore it is possible to conclude that although restorative approaches are a better way of dealing with crime as it gives the victim power therefore giving communities a sense of ownership in the decision-making process, (McElrea, 1996). It is a notion which needs a lot of refinement and funding to examine the effectiveness of it especially in England, (Wright, 1996). For it to be successful the publics’ perceptions also need to change from the status quo.
REFERENCES
BOOKS:
Braithwaite J (1989)
Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press UK.
Braithwaite, J in Tonry, M (Ed) (1999)
‘Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts’.
In Crime and Justice, a Review of Research, p1-127. University of Chicago Press USA.
Elias R (1993)
Victims Still. Sage Publishing UK.
Hough M & Mayhew P (1995)
The British Crime Survey. HMSO London.
Hudson B & Galaway J (Eds) (1996)
Restorative Justice International Perspectives. Kugler Amsterdam.
Johnstone G (2002)
Restorative Justice; Ideas, Values, Debates. Willan Publishing UK.
Koffman (1996)
Crime Surveys And Victims Of Crime. University Of Wales Press UK.
Maguire M & Morgan R & Reiner R (Eds) (1997)
The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Second Edition. Oxford University Press UK.
Marsh P & Crow G (1998)
Family Group Conferences In Child Welfare. Blackwells UK.
Miers D (2001)
Crime Reduction Series Paper 9.
An Exploratory Evaluation Of Restorative Justice Schemes. Crown Copyright UK.
Miers D (2001)
An International Review Of Restorative Justice. Crown Copyright UK.
Morris A & Maxwell G in Crawford A & Goodey J (Eds) (2000)
‘The practice of family group conferences in New Zealand: assessing the place, potential and pitfalls of restorative justice’ in Integrating a Victim Perspective in Criminal Justice. Abingdon Press UK, p207-225.
Williams B (1999)
Working With Victims Of Crime; Policies, And Practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers UK.
Zehr H (1990)
Changing Lenses: A new focus for Crime and Justice. Herald Press USA.
Williams K.S (2001)
Textbook On Criminology. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press UK.
White R & Haynes F (1996)
Crime and Criminology: an introduction. Oxford University Press UK.
JOURNALS:
Ball C (2000)
‘The Youth Justice & Criminal Evidence Act 1999: Part 1; A significant move towards Restorative Justice, or a recipe for unintended consequences?’
Criminal Law Review, p211-222.
Bazemore G and Umbreit M (1995)
‘Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or Restorative responses to youth crime’.
Crime and Delinquency, 41, (3), p296-316.
Griffiths C (1999)
‘The victims of crime and restorative justice; The Canadian experience’
International Review of Victimology, 6: p279-294.
Lupton C (1998)
‘User Empowerment or Family Self-Reliance? The family group conference model’
British Journal of Social Work 28, (1), p107-128.
Morris A & Maxwell G & Robertson J (1993)
‘Giving victims a voice: A New Zealand experiment’
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 32, (4), p304-321.
Young M (1999)
‘Restorative community justice in the United States: A new paradigm’
International Review of Victimology, 6: p265-277.
Umbreit M & Bradshaw W & Coates R (1999)
‘Victims of severe violence meet the offender: restorative justice through dialogue’.
International Review of Victimology, 6, p321-344.
Zedner L (1994)
‘Reparation and Retribution: Are they Reconcilable?’
Modern Law Review, 57, (2), p228-50.
Zehr H & Mika H (1998)
‘Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice’.
Contemporary Justice Review, 1, (1), p47-55.
WEBSITES:
Cited by Johnstone, G .page 16.
(2002)
cited in Braithwaite (1989)
