Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials

Abstract

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

Offer and Acceptance of Apology in Victim-Offender Mediation

“…Although our findings are compatible with others showing high apology acceptance rates in the RJ context (Shapland et al, 2006;Sherman et al, 2005), they are also somewhat surprising given the long history of conflict in some of the cases. Bennett and Dewberry (1994) have shown that explicit rejections of apologies are rare, and rather recipients show offense, anger or disapproval.…”

Are Restorative Justice Conferences Effective in Reducing Repeat Offending? Findings from a Campbell Systematic Review

“…(see Strang 2002;Strang et al 2006Strang et al , 2013Sherman et al 2005) Because frequency of criminal convictions (or arrests) is a crude indicator of the amount of harm caused by crime, the review also sought information indicating the seriousness or cost of crime as a measure of impact on repeat offending.…”

Research design influence on study outcomes in crime and justice: a partial replication with public area surveillance

“…Higher-quality evaluations, as indicated by internal validity, provide more confidence in observed effects, and randomized experiments have the highest internal validity (Farrington andWelsh 2005, 2006;Shadish et al 2002). The second issue was that criminal justice, with few exceptions (e.g., Braga 2005;Sherman et al 2005), does not have the luxury (unlike medicine) to base policies and practices solely on evidence from randomized experiments. Instead, it must consider a wider range of evaluation designs (Mears 2007(Mears , 2010.…”