3.1.4 Method 1: Restorative Justice Evaluation Flashcards
What percentage of victims in face-to-face restorative justice meetings report satisfaction?
85% (UK Restorative Justice Council, 2015)
What do victims in restorative justice programs report compared to mainstream courts?
Greater sense of satisfaction (Dignan, 2005)
How can victims who don’t participate in restorative justice still benefit?
Knowing the offender wants to make amends can help victims cope.
What percentage of victims in a UK police force were satisfied with restorative justice for violent crime?
92.5%
What are some negatives of the UK police force study on restorative justice?
- Only completed in one police force (Avon and Somerset)
- Results can’t be generalised to all UK police forces or other cultures
> (cultural bias, low population validity) - Research focused only on violent crime
> limiting generalisability to other crime types
Sherman & Strang (2007) Study method and findings
- Involved face-to -face RJ
- Review of 36 studies
- use of young adults
- Most studies showed reduced re-offending
- 11% re-conviction compared to 37% in control
group - found increased recidivism after RJ
Sherman & Strang (2007) limitations
used only young adults
> results can’t be generalized to all age groups
- One study on property crime
> cant generalise to other types of crime
Latimer et al. (2005) Study
- Meta-analysis
- 22 studies
- majority young males
Latimer et al. (2005) Study findings and limitations
Those taking part in RJ had reduced re-offending, increased victim and offender satisfaction
Self-selection bias:
Offender and victim have volunteered to take part in the programme
> biased sample
> reduces validity
Limited use of RJ
RJ is dependent upon both VICTIM and OFFENDER
- They both have to agree to take part
> method is not applicable to all offenders
Crimes with no personal victim may be unsuitable for RJ
> cannot be used on all offenders, has limited use
Ethics (positive)
- process requires valid consent from both sides
> very ethical
Ethical implication for victim (negative)
Risk of psychological harm
- Could feel like offender isn’t sorry & shows no
empathy
> could affect their confidence/self-esteem
- embarrassment if offender is unserious
Ethical implication for offender (negative)
Risk of psychological harm
- May be an abuse of power
> if victim/families try to put pressure on the offender = offender feels vulnerable- especially if young offender
Social implication (positive)
bringing society together
- bringing cohesion to society, supporting the victim whilst also accepting the offender
- positive impact on wider society by helping reduce offending
Social implication (positive)
The UK Restorative Justice Council claims that because of reduced re-offending, £8 is saved for every £1 spent on restorative justice
May have substantial financial benefits for the economy
Social implications
cultural factor:
The UK has a large prison population
> 86,000 in 2024
This is bigger than other European countries
