Restortative Justice A03

Question 1

Positive outcomes - strength - (Shapland et al. 2008)

Answer 1

• reported the results of a major seven-year research project.
• The headline figures are impressive: 85% of survivors reported satisfaction with the process of meeting their offender face-to-face and 78% would recommend it to other people experiencing a similar situation. About 60% of survivors felt the process had made them feel better about the incident - enabling them to feel closure and to move on. Only 2% said it had made them feel worse.
• This suggests that restorative justice achieves some of its aims, helping survivors of crime cope with the aftermath of the incident.

Question 2

Counterpoint - William Wood and Masahiro Suzuki (2016)

Answer 2

• argue that restorative processes are not as survivor-focused as often reported in satisfaction surveys.
  Indeed, the researchers say that restorative justice processes can become distorted, such as when survivors of crime are used’ as a way of helping to rehabilitate offenders, rather than being helped themselves.
• This suggests that the needs of the survivor in restorative justice may be seen as secondary to the need to rehabilitate offenders.

Question 3

Recidivism - strength - Heather Strang et al. (2013) & Kristin Bain (2012)

Answer 3

Heather Strang - compared offenders who experienced face-to-face restorative justice schemes with those who just experienced custodial sentencing. The restorative justice group was significantly less likely to reoffend. This reduction was larger in offenders convicted of violent crime than crimes against property.

Kristin Bain - a review of 24 published studies - lowered recidivism rates with adult offenders, especially when using one-to-one contact rather than general community involvement.
- This suggests that restorative justice has a positive impact on reoffending, maybe more so for some types of offence than others and some approaches.

Question 4

Abusing the system - limitation

Answer 4

• The success of restorative justice programmes may hinge on an offender’s intentions being honourable - that is, they must be taking part because they genuinely regret the hurt caused and they want to make amends.
• However, Hubert Van Gijseghem (2003) suggests that offenders may use restorative justice for all kinds of reasons: avoiding punishment, playing down their faults, even taking pride in their relationship with the survivor using direct contact (face-to-face or in writing).
• This would explain why not all offenders ultimately benefit from restorative justice and go on to reoffend.