Working with female offenders in restorative justice frameworks

Abstract

Despite a recent increase in restorative justice practice in the criminal justice system, to date there has been no in-depth consideration of the impact of gender in these settings. This paper presents findings from a unique qualitative study on female offenders' experiences of restorative conferencing in England and Wales, drawing on interviews with practitioners who have worked with female cases, as well as with women who have gone through a restorative justice conference in a perpetrator capacity. Gender specific factors, suggested to be especially valuable for practitioners to consider when delivering effective and ethical restorative conferences with female offenders, are outlined.

Restorative Justice With Female Offenders: The Neglected Role of Gender in Restorative Conferencing

“…While recognizing that each case is different, an overarching important factor for the positive management of guilt and shame was the quality of restorative justice work that the woman was offered. Factors such as suitable preparation work, including adequate assessments around mental health, good organization of the event, and the provision of quality after-support, were key in this area (see Masson & Österman, 2017).…”

Women offenders who served community sentences: A view from Catalonia

“…It is also necessary to pay particular attention to whether women in the workplace or educational programme experience discriminatory comments and attitudes, insecurity and discomfort (Birkett, 2019;McIvor, 2007). No less important is that the professionals working with women receive training from a gender-responsive approach because where gender-responsive principles inform supervisors and programmes, there are better outcomes for women (Masson and Osterman, 2017;Phoenix, 2017). In the same vein, hearing directly from women offenders/ex-offenders can be very powerful for professionals.…”

“…This has led to a series of evidence-based recommendations, best practices (e.g. Gelsthorpe et al, 2007;Masson and Osterman, 2017;Phoenix, 2017Phoenix, , 2018Sheehan et al, 2007Sheehan et al, , 2011 and multiple theories (e.g. Barr, 2019;Carlen, 2012;Covington, 2016;Covington andBloom, 2003, 2006;Petrillo, 2019) on which a criminal justice approach that aims to be sensitive to gender and diversity should be based.…”

Restorative justice informed criminal justice social work and probation services

“…CJSW could therefore incorporate greater RJ processes and practicesespecially the facilitation of dialogue between those responsible and harmed by crime -as well as shifting the whole system in the direction of restorative outcomes. However, introducing greater RJ processes into the criminal justice system has the potential to add additional burdens onto those subject to criminal justice, threatening principles of proportionality (Ashworth, 2002;Masson and Österman, 2017). This can be managed through the appropriate use of RJ within diversion from prosecution, pre-sentencing and post-sentencing processes (Kirkwood, 2018b).…”