A review of restorative justice responses to offending

Weatherburn, Don; Macadam, Megan

doi:10.21307/eb-2013-004

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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

Section: Methodological Issues Forming An Equivalent Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Selection bias is a widely-recognized problem within the RJ literature (Bergseth and Bouffard, 2007;Hayes, 2005Hayes, , 2007Livingstone et al, 2013;McGrath, 2008;Weatherburn and Macadam, 2013). Some comparison studies have not attempted to account or control for possible selection bias.…”

Section: The Problem Of Selection Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice

Kawałek¹,

Edwards²,

Best³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alongside the flourishing of RJ programs worldwide, empirical studies have been conducted to evaluate their success. Most empirical knowledge assesses recidivism rates and the participants' level of satisfaction (Sherman et al, 2015;Weatherburn & Macadam, 2013). In general, studies have found that survivors of RJ processes benefited from and were satisfied with the process (Nascimento et al, 2022).…”

Section: The Consequences Of Youth Csvmentioning

confidence: 99%

When a Boy Hurts a Girl in Cyberspace: Facilitators’ Views on Potential Benefits and Challenges in Restorative Justice

Hadar,

Shehman,

Gal

2024

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen a significant increase in cyber sexual offenses (CSO) conducted through the creation and distribution of intimate images and videos of others without their knowledge or consent, oftentimes among minors. Restorative justice (RJ) offers a platform to conduct an open, direct, and safe dialogue between responsible persons (RP) and survivors. This explorative study aimed to identify the central characteristics of RJ processes conducted following CSO between youths and to explore their potential benefits and challenges. The study involved in-depth interviews with 10 RJ facilitators and mediators in Israel and Belgium, who led RJ processes following CSO among minors. In addition, content analysis of documents describing these processes was conducted. Four themes emerged: The uniqueness of youth CSO; features of direct encounter; intergenerational aspects; and the need to manage expectations of the process among youth, parents, and facilitators.

show abstract

“…Empirical studies have been conducted to evaluate the success of the growing number of RJ programs (Angel et al, 2014; Nascimento et al, 2022; Strang, 2002). Most empirical knowledge assesses recidivism rates and the participants’ degree of satisfaction (Sherman et al, 2015; Weatherburn & Macadam, 2013). In general, studies have found that survivors who took part in RJ processes were positively affected (Nascimento et al, 2022) and satisfied with the process (Latimer et al, 2005).…”

Section: Theory and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survivors’ Paths Toward Forgiveness in Restorative Justice Following Sexual Violence

Hadar

Gal

2023

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual violence (SV) yields complex justice and therapeutic needs among its survivors. Restorative justice (RJ), conducted in addition to or instead of the criminal justice process following SV, provides a platform to address these needs and repair the harm. This study describes the dynamics of RJ processes following SV, leading to the emergence of dialogic forgiveness. Dialogic forgiveness refers to a reduction in negative thoughts, feelings, and motivations toward the responsible person (RP), and the emergence of positive ones within a process of mutual communication between the survivor, RP, and supporters. Focusing on survivors’ experiences, this study, conducted in Israel, is based on 16 semi-structured in-depth interviews with SV survivors who participated in RJ encounters, their five supporters, and five RJ facilitators. Gestures of accountability, humanization, and gratitude were identified as crucial elements of implicit and explicit dialogic forgiveness, demonstrating the healing power of RJ following SV.

show abstract

A review of restorative justice responses to offending

Cited by 12 publications

References 27 publications

Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice

Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice

When a Boy Hurts a Girl in Cyberspace: Facilitators’ Views on Potential Benefits and Challenges in Restorative Justice

Survivors’ Paths Toward Forgiveness in Restorative Justice Following Sexual Violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About