RECAP Newsletter
Issue 40: July 2008
Victims and Justice
Rethinking Blog
Why is it that the key personalities deny the effectiveness of restorative justice. Garth McVicar has referred to it as a “failed social experiment” and that it doesn’t work. Visiting author, David Fraser, claimed in his book “A Land Fit for Criminals” that there was no evidence to show that restorative justice worked , and that its main effect is to “neutralize the justified anger of those who have been victimized, and so reduce the possibility of public protest and demand for more prisoners”
Even Simon Power MP, in a speech to the 25th Anniversary Prison Fellowship conference, who spoke in support of restorative justice, said that
“notwithstanding the positive evaluations for restorative justice pilots by victims that I referred to before, the impact on re‑offending seems to need some further analysis. And we can't lose sight of that goal. The need to reduce re‑offending is one thing that actually unites politicians on all sides of the political spectrum. Getting them to agree on the best way to achieve that of course is slightly problematic.”
The evidence is clear and trends toward a positive evidence of education in reoffending. What is your view of the effectiveness of restorative justice? Should it become part of a parallel justice system? Should it be expanded?
Article by: Heather Verry - CEO Victim Support
Parallel Justice
This week’s guest contributor is Heather Verry, Chief Executive for Victim Support. Alongside their longstanding commitment to victims’ needs, Victim Support has been advocating for a system of Parallel Justice precipitated by the release of Victim Support’s position document “Commitment to Parallel Justice” [1] in February this year. Parallel Justice is a framework that would require both a governmental and a community response to ensure victims are given a separate path to justice alongside the criminal justice system. It involves victims having the opportunity to speak their truth and having their needs distinguished from society’s treatment of the offender.Victim’s Rights tend to get increased attention during an election year. The Labour government announced a number of proposed measures, including developing a Victims’ Charter, an information website for victims and boosting funding to Victim Support. The National Party released a summary of policies, including upgrading the Victim Notification Register, establishing a Victims’ Services Centre within the Ministry of Justice and reviewing the Victims Rights Act 2002. Two current Bills– the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) – go some way in advancing victims’ rights.
What is lacking
is a strategic approach to both victim’s needs and victims rights.
Parallel Justice is a framework that would require both a governmental
and a community response to ensure victims are given a separate path to
justice alongside the criminal justice system. It involves victims
having the opportunity to speak their truth and having their needs
distinguished from society’s treatment of the offender. This concept has
been strongly promoted by the National Centre for Victims of Crime in
the
Click here to read Heather Verry’s article on ‘Parallel Justice’.
Download Victim Support’s publication “A Commitment to Parallel Justice’
*S. Herman. Is restorative justice possible without a parallel justice system for victims? In Howard Zehr and Barb Toews, Eds., Critical Issues in Restorative Justice, Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press, 2004: 75.
The Evidence for Restorative Justice
One of the keys to the success for a parallel justice system, is to provide victims with the right to engage in a restorative justice process, at any stage of the judicial process, should they choose.
While it recognises the place restorative justice holds in providing a voice for victims and an avenue for a community response to “repairing” harm, Victim Support’s call is for restorative justice to be enhanced and expanded. The state must offer victim-offender meetings throughout the entire criminal justice process, not just before sentencing.
The approach taken by Victim Support, places an emphasis on the restorative justice process, which was missing in earlier years – the idea that restorative justice is important, not because it reduces re-offending, but because it assists victims in their healing process.
Two recent pieces of research
emphasise the impact of the restorative justice process on both victims
and offenders. In 2007,
Lawrence W Sherman and Heather
Strang published a review of research (1) on restorative justice (RJ) in
the
• substantially reduced repeat offending for some offenders, but not all;
• reduced crime victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms and related costs;
• provided both victims and offenders with more satisfaction with justice than CJ;
• reduced crime victims’ desire for violent revenge against their offenders;
• reduced the costs of criminal justice, when used as diversion from CJ;
• reduced recidivism more than prison (adults) or as well as prison (youths).
In June 2008, Joanna Shapland
et al reported on whether restorative justice affects reconviction
rates. (2) This is the
fourth report on the evaluation of three restorative justice schemes
funded by the Home Office1 under its Crime Reduction Programme from
mid-2001. Unlike most restorative justice schemes in
Summed over all three restorative justice schemes, the research found that:
1. Those offenders who participated in restorative justice committed statistically significantly fewer offences (in terms of reconvictions) in the subsequent two years than offenders in the control group.
2. All restorative justice groups showed a lower cost of convictions that their control groups. Costs of convictions included the costs to potential future victims and criminal justice costs.
Comment
As the evidence for the effectiveness of restorative justice grows, and its benefits for both victims and offenders becomes increasingly obvious, it becomes increasingly difficult to treat it as something ‘nice to do’ with youth and minor offenders.
(1) , Lawrence W Sherman and Heather Strang , “Restorative Justice: The Evidence”, published by the Smith Institute 2007. Download the report by clicking here
(2) Joanna
Shapland, Anne Atkinson, Helen Atkinson, James Dignan, Lucy Edwards,
Jeremy Hibbert, Marie Howes, Jennifer Johnstone, Gwen Robinson and
Angela Sorsby; )
“Does restorative
justice affect reconviction?” - The fourth report from the evaluation
of three schemes. Centre for Criminological
Copyright 2008 PFNZ, All rights reserved