Desistance from crime and restorative justice

Abstract

Over the last twenty years, research on desistance from crime and on restorative justice has grown rapidly and both have emerged as exciting, vibrant, and dynamic areas of contemporary criminological interest. While the implementation of restorative justice practices in Europe has been essentially victim-oriented, there has always also been an emphasis on including the moral and social rehabilitation of the offender. This more offender-centred approach to restorative justice and its practices is not limited to the evaluation of its ability to reduce crime, but is to be seen within the connection between reparation, resettlement (reintegration into the community after sentence), and desistance from crime. This article examines, from a broad perspective, but including some preliminary data from ongoing research on victimoffender mediation in prison, the capacity of restorative justice interventions to impact positively on offenders' likelihood of stopping committing criminal offences.

How Does Restorative Justice Work? A Qualitative Metasynthesis

“…. ] it made me more certain that I will not do that again” (Individual who committed a crime in Claes & Shapland, 2016, p. 312). In addition, RJ offers a life-turning opportunity—staying away from problems in their life that could lead to offending, such as addition and gambling (Abrams et al, 2006), hereby addressing the root cause of their offending.…”

“…• Additional legal and procedural considerations-confidentiality, role of police, and sensitive case, and receptive professional culture(Halsey et al, 2015) • Ensuring safety of participants (Kingi, 2014,),• Attending alone; whose side police are on; leaving the conflict as is (Larsson et al, 2018)• Voice and other procedural determinants (Van Camp & Wemmers, 2013)• Motivational and cognitive elements linked to RJ practices(Claes & Shapland, 2016) • Future life suggestions(Halsey et al, 2015) • Meeting victims helped to stop postconference offending(Hayes et al, 2011) •The impact of the agreement on postconference offending behavior(Hayes et al, 2014) …”

From ‘what works’ to ‘how it works’ in research on restorative justice conferencing: the concept of readiness

“…Some participants may be motivated to participate in the restorative justice process, and this motivation may lead to restorative and other positive outcomes. For example, offenders may be already remorseful before a face-to-face dialogue with victims and that this remorse may affect their reoffending and desistance (Claes & Shapland, 2016;Hayes & Daly, 2003). Research by Jonas-van Dijk, Zebel, Claessen and Nelen (2020) partly supports this hypothesis.…”

Restorative Practice in the Criminal Justice System: Examining a Restorative Reasoning Programme in a Women’s Prison

“…Accessibility reflects the degree to which programmes are inclusive and open to participants that want to engage, and feasibility in this context is a measure of 'whether or not the crime prevention intervention was implemented as it was originally designed' (Rummens et al 2016, p. 21). Claes and Shapland (2016) emphasise the importance of restorative work as inclusive; however, engaging with communities in institutional settings such as prisons can present a challenge (Hobson et al 2021). Czerniawski (2016) proposes two sets of dispositional barriers within the prison system in England and Wales: the first includes disadvantaged childhoods, previous educational failure, low self-esteem, mental health disabilities and drug and alcohol abuse; the second includes institutional and situational factors and barriers such as overcrowding, classroom space, ration of learners to teachers, limited curriculums, and shortage of resources such as computer.…”