One major goal of face-to-face restorative justice (RJ) is to help heal the psychological harm suffered by crime victims (Braithwaite, 2002). Substantial evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has shown that this can be accomplished (Strang, 2002) and more trials are underway (Sherman & Strang, 2004 The costs of crime are rarely calculated to include its full impact on crime victims. The British government, for example, employs a formula to estimate crime costs that includes property loss, health services, and victim support services, but makes only a crude estimation of the emotional costs entailed in victimization with no mention of such victim effects as fear of the offender repeating the crime, emotions of anger or grievance, or loss of a general sense of trust in others (Brand

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

Objectives We conducted and measured outcomes from the Jerry Lee Program of 12 randomized trials over two decades in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), testing an identical method of restorative justice taught by the same trainers to hundreds of police officers and others who delivered it to 2231 offenders and 1179 victims in 1995- J Exp Criminol (2015) 11:501-540 DOI 10.1007 2004. The article provides a review of the scientific progress and policy effects of the program, as described in 75 publications and papers arising from it, including previously unpublished results of our ongoing analyses. Methods After random assignment in four Australian tests diverting criminal or juvenile cases from prosecution to restorative justice conferences (RJCs), and eight UK tests of supplementing criminal or juvenile proceedings with RJCs, we followed intention-to-treat group differences between offenders for up to 18 years, and for victims up to 10 years.Results We distil and modify prior research reports into 18 updated evidence-based conclusions about the effects of RJCs on both victims and offenders. Initial reductions in repeat offending among offenders assigned to RJCs (compared to controls) were found in 10 of our 12 tests. Nine of the ten successes were for crimes with personal victims who participated in the RJCs, with clear benefits in both short-and long-term measures, including less prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms. Moderator effects across and within experiments showed that RJCs work best for the most frequent and serious offenders for repeat offending outcomes, with other clear moderator effects for poly-drug use and offense seriousness.Conclusions RJ conferences organized and led (most often) by specially-trained police produced substantial short-term, and some long-term, benefits for both crime victims and their offenders, across a range of offense types and stages of the criminal justice processes on two continents, but with important moderator effects. These conclusions are made possible by testing a new kind of justice on a programmatic basis that would allow prospective meta-analysis, rather than doing one experiment at a time. This finding provides evidence that funding agencies could get far more evidence for the same cost from programs of identical, but multiple, RCTs of the identical innovative methods, rather than funding one RCT at a time.

No abstract