Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21)

Livingstone, Nuala; Macdonald, Geraldine; Carr, Nicola

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008898.pub2

Cited by 26 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While respecting other belief systems (in particular, the relevance of healing to First Nations and First Peoples), my view is that healing should not be an explicit goal of justice activities for two reasons: its strongly Christian religious overtones and its focus on positive states of mind as the principle aim of justice activities. 7 There are, of course, systematic reviews of random controlled trials of restorative justice conferencing practices (Livingstone, Macdonald, & Carr, 2013;Strang, Sherman, Mayo-Wilson, Woods, & Ariel, 2013). This is one method of assessing and comparing differing justice mechanisms, but it is not the only one.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question

Daly

2015

Victims & Offenders

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has become commonplace to say that restorative justice cannot be defined. I argue that restorative justice can and must be defined concretely as a justice mechanism. I develop this argument with four points: (1) restorative justice is not a type of justice; it is a justice mechanism; (2) retributive justice is not a type of justice or a justice mechanism; (3) restorative justice is one of many justice mechanisms under an innovative justice umbrella; and (4) restorative justice can be defined. The way forward is to assess and compare a variety of justice mechanisms, which reside on a continuum from conventional to innovative. In time, the justice mechanisms studied may come to matter more than the concept of restorative justice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question

Daly

2015

Victims & Offenders

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In response to these apparent flaws, some scholars have exclusively reviewed RCTs of RJ interventions that adhere to a specified programme definition (e.g. Livingstone et al, 2013;Sherman et al, 2015aSherman et al, , 2015b. Although these systematic reviews may provide more meaningful conclusions regarding the potential of RJ to reduce reoffending, such strict inclusion criteria excludes the majority of RJ evaluation research and, therefore, a potential treatment effect.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hayes, 2007;Sherman and Strang, 2007;Wilson et al, 2017) contend that current evidence of RJ's crime reduction potential is promising but remains inconclusive. Still others assert that due to significant methodological limitations (Livingstone et al, 2013;McGrath, 2008;Weatherburn and Macadam, 2013), and well-known threats to validity (McCold, 2008: 9), current research lacks reliable evidence to support RJ's purported ability to reduce reoffending.…”

Section: Methodological Issues Forming An Equivalent Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice

Kawałek¹,

Edwards²,

Best³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter contributes to the Handbook's key objectives by critically examining the question of whether or not restorative justice (RJ) can be demonstrated to reduce reoffending. Since the 1990s, RJ has emerged as a popular alternative to more traditional or conventional criminal justice responses to crime. In its growth and increasing institutionalization, there has been a growing focus by policy makers and interest by researchers on the ability of RJ to reduce reoffending. To date, however, evaluation research has failed to report consistent findings. These mixed results can be attributed to substantial variation in RJ programmes. Currently there is little consensus on what defines RJ and, therefore, what defines an RJ intervention. As a result, many programmes differ in ways that are theoretically and empirically related to offending. The conflicting results found in RJ evaluations can be further attributed to the wide variation in study design and significant methodological limitations, largely pertaining to how best to: (i) control for potential bias and form a fair and equivalent comparison group, and (ii) measure reoffending. Through a concise but thorough examination of findings of existing RJ evaluation research from English-speaking countries, we provide readers with a "user guide" for understanding and critically assessing current evidence on the effects of RJ on reoffending. We conclude that given the considerable heterogeneity in programme and research design, there remains limited methodological rigorous evidence to support the claim that RJ interventions reduce reoffending, and that the promising conclusions reported in some reviews and meta-analyses may be overly optimistic given these limitations.

show abstract

“…cautiously by some RJC proponents (Walgrave, 2012) as well as cited as justification for the implementation and use of RJC programs (Gielen and Buccellato, 2010). To date, evidence from evaluative studies on reoffending is mixed, with some research finding a positive impact of RJC on reoffending (Sherman et al, 2015;Wong et al, 2016), and others finding minimal or no effects (Hayes, 2007;Livingstone et al, 2013;Weatherburn and Macadam, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Restorative Justice Conferencing Appropriate for Youth Offenders?

Suzuki

Wood

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While many studies on restorative justice conferencing (RJC) for youth offenders have shown favourable outcomes such as victim satisfaction and fairness, and offender accountability and perceived legitimacy, other studies have demonstrated more problematic outcomes in terms of mutual understanding, sincerity of apology and reoffending. Given the complexity of RJC as a concept and as a process, such ‘limits’ might be attributed to the capacity and characteristics of youth offenders. To date, however, there has been little examination of developmental, cognitive, or environmental impediments on the part of youth offenders in terms of achieving restorative outcomes in RJC. This paper discusses the potential impacts of limited developmental and cognitive capacities of youth offenders on the RJC process and outcomes.

show abstract

Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21)

Cited by 26 publications

References 31 publications

What is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question

What is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question

Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice

Is Restorative Justice Conferencing Appropriate for Youth Offenders?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About