Implementing Restorative Justice Schemes (Crime Reduction Programme) A Report on The First Year

Shapland, Joanna; Colledge, E; Dignan, James; Howes, Marie; Johnstone, J; Pennant, Rachel; Robinson, Gwen; Sorsby, Angela

doi:10.1037/e636292007-001

Cited by 40 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Canberra experiments, for example, featured systematic observations of RJ conferences as well as CJ processes, as well as interviews of both offenders and victims after the events (Harris 2002;Strang 2002). The authors were not funded to undertake systematic observations in the London RCTs, but an independent evaluation by the University of Sheffield gathered such data and is expected to report on them in future years (see Shapland et al 2004). Conversely, the London experiments include victim measures of post-traumatic stress symptoms employing the same measures as Foa and her colleagues (Angel 2004), but such data were not collected in Canberra.…”

Section: Hypotheses and Criterion Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, an observer from the team of external evaluators from the University of Sheffield (appointed by the UK Home Office, the program funders) also attended each conference (Shapland et al 2004). (Virtually all conferences had at least one observer who did not participate, sometimes including senior officials in government.…”

Section: Implementing Randomizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing use of restorative justice provides a major opportunity for experimental criminology and evidence-based policy. Face-to-face meetings led by police officers between crime victims and their offenders are predicted to reduce the harm to victims caused by the crime. This prediction is derived not only from the social movement for restorative justice, but also from psychological and sociological theories. Four randomized, controlled trials of this hypothesis in London and Canberra, with point estimates disaggregated by gender, tested the prediction with measures of both successful interaction (apologies received and their perceived sincerity) and the hypothesized benefits of the ritual (on forgiveness of, and reduced desire for violent revenge against, offenders, and victim selfblame for the crime). The meta-analyses of the eight point estimates suggest success (as victims define it) of restorative justice as an interaction ritual, and some benefits as a policy for reducing harm to victims.Across the world, a growing social movement advocates restorative justice for those affected by crime Yvictims and offenders alike (Braithwaite 2002). Embracing a wide range of procedures recommended for a wide range of criminal justice settings, the concept of restorative justice is associated with two major hypotheses, both of which are eminently testable ( Ruth and Reitz 2003). One is that restorative justice ( RJ ) will do better than conventional justice (CJ ) at reducing repeat offending. The other hypothesis is that RJ will do better than CJ at repairing the harm that crime causes to victims. This article provides new evidence on the second hypothesis, drawn exclusively from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) led by the two senior authors.Our evidence bears upon one specific approach to restorative justice: face-toface meetings among offenders, their victims, and their respective family and friends as Fsupporters._ All of our evidence is based on such meetings being conducted by specially trained police officers who have studied the facts of the case and arranged for all of the participants to attend the meeting. The four RCTs vary by offense type (with both violent and property crimes) and location in the criminal justice process ( pre-court diversion vs. pre-sentence), as well as by the physical location of the meetings (inside prisons or in private rooms in police stations) and by nation (Australia vs. United Kingdom). Thus we examine the Journal of Experimental Criminology (2005) 1: 367-395 # Springer 2005

show abstract

Section: Hypotheses and Criterion Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implementing Randomizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two of the ten RCTs were designed, delivered and analyzed by research teams including three of the authors of this review (Strang, Sherman, and Woods). Independent authors gathered outcome data, analyzed and published results of the other eight trials, seven of which (Shapland et al, 2006(Shapland et al, , 2008 were operationally directed by two of the authors of this review (Strang and Sherman) and one of which was operated without contact with any authors of this review. One review author (Sherman) wrote the grant proposals and initial research designs for all ten eligible RCTs.…”

Section: Role Of the Authors In Reviewed Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face‐to‐Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review

Strang

Sherman

Mayo‐Wilson

et al. 2013

Campbell Systematic Reviews

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Campbell Collaboration (C2) was founded on the principle that systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services. C2 offers editorial and methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review. A number of C2's editors, librarians, methodologists and external peerreviewers contribute. The Campbell Collaboration Synopsis/Abstract OBJECTIVEThis systematic review examines the effects of the subset of restorative justice programs that has been tested most extensively: a face-to-face Restorative Justice Conference (RJC) "that brings together offenders, their victims, and their respective kin and communities, in order to decide what the offender should do to repair the harm that a crime has caused" (Sherman and Strang, 2012: 216). The Review investigates the effects of RJCs on offenders' subsequent convictions (or in one case arrests) for crime, and on several measures of victim impact. The review considers only randomized controlled trials in which victim and offenders consented to meet prior to random assignment, the analysis of which was based on the results of an "intention-to-treat" analysis. A total of ten experiments with recidivism outcomes were found that met the eligibility criteria, all of which also had at least one victim impact measure. CONCLUSIONSOur synthesis of these experiments shows that, on average, RJCs cause a modest but highly cost-effective reduction in repeat offending, with substantial benefits for victims. A cost-effectiveness estimate for the seven United Kingdom (UK) experiments found a ratio of 8 times more benefit in costs of crimes prevented than the cost of delivering RJCs.

show abstract

“…Regarding obey a restorative justice agreement, result finds that 98 percent of offenders fulfil the outcome of an agreement reached in a consensual group discussion (Shapland et al, 2006). The same success has reported in four Canberra RISE tests (Strang, H., 2002).…”

Section: Success Of Restorative Justice Processmentioning

confidence: 53%

Application of Restorative Justice Theory in Aboriginal Criminal Justice Process in Canada: An Analysis

Ferdous¹,

Khan²,

Dulal³

2018

BEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aboriginal is the first nation in Canada. Their beliefs and behaviour, culture and tradition, and the socioeconomic process are different from traditional contemporary Canadian. Thus they do not believe traditional litigation or win-lose contest of criminal justice process rather prefer the resolution by understanding. The Canadian traditional criminal justice system comes from western approach; therefore, this system is a mismatch with aboriginal traditional culture and value. There is a significant difference between the aboriginal justice process and predominant traditional criminal justice process exist in Canada. Canadian traditional criminal justice system does not acknowledge specialized aboriginal background. As a result, contemporary Canadian criminal justice system cannot ensure the aboriginal's right. Therefore, the different study shows that the alternative criminal justice system is urgently needed for Canadian aboriginal people. This alternative criminal justice system is referred here as Restorative Justice (RJ) process.

show abstract

Implementing Restorative Justice Schemes (Crime Reduction Programme) A Report on The First Year

Cited by 40 publications

References 2 publications

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials

Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face‐to‐Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review

Application of Restorative Justice Theory in Aboriginal Criminal Justice Process in Canada: An Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About