Looking Back to the Future: Threats to the Success of Restorative Justice in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed an entrenchment of restorative justice principles and practices in the youth and adult criminal justice systems of the UK. This research presents a comparative analysis of the findings of two empirical studies-one of a police restorative cautioning scheme conducted fifteen years ago, and the second a contemporary study of youth offender panels. In this research, we argue that restorative justice practices in the UK are repeating history, rather than learning from it. Specifically, we argue that if restorative justice programmes continue to proliferate with the same shortcomings-most notably, inadequate victim involvement, failure to provide a genuine role for the community, and targeting only relatively low-level crime-the future for restorative justice in the UK is likely to be bleak.

Four Challenges in the Future of Restorative Justice

“…Hoyle's and Rosenblatt's (Hoyle and Rosenblatt, 2016, this issue) comparison of RJ programs ten years ago and today in the UK illustrates a key problem in this respect, namely that while institutionalization may lead to the "growth" of RJ legislation and programs, this does not necessarily translate into the development and implementation of lessons learned or of better practice. On the contrary, it may lead to more entrenched and entangled practices where definitions of "success" (or even re-definitions of RJ) are subsumed into system goals.…”

“…In the US, a large amount of the growth of RJ has come in terms of replacing, or being coupled with diversionary programs, particularly for youth offenders (Bazemore and Schiff, 2005;Umbreit, Coates, and Vos, 2004). While RJ practices have been implemented, and in some cases legislated, in all Anglophone countries, the growth of RJ has come largely in the "shallow end" of the criminal justice pool in terms of lessor offenses and/or youth offending (Hoyle and Rosenblatt, 2016;Shapland, 2014) with the exception of New Zealand and some Australian states.…”

“…By this term we mean the degree to which RJ has moved into previously existing informal or diversionary forms of youth and/or criminal justice. The use of RJ in some countries such as the UK has displaced or been coupled with practices of cautioning young offenders (Hoyle and Rosenblatt, 2016, this issue). In the US, a large amount of the growth of RJ has come in terms of replacing, or being coupled with diversionary programs, particularly for youth offenders (Bazemore and Schiff, 2005;Umbreit, Coates, and Vos, 2004).…”

Co-option, coercion and compromise: challenges of restorative justice in Victoria, Australia

“…In its institutionalization and growth, RJ has not only become administratively hindered and co-opted, but it has also become increasingly used for purposes, and in cases it was never intended for. Much of this growth has come at the 'low end' of offending (Hoyle & Rosenblatt, 2016;Shapland, 2014). As discussed above, interviews with some conveners mentioned that although they felt that serious crimes could be more effectively dealt with through RJ, depending on magistrates such cases were less likely to be referred to the YJGCP than minor offences.…”

“…Such cases also arguably precipitate administrative constraint and co-option (Hoyle & Rosenblatt, 2016;Skelton & Batley, 2006), through inviting magistrates, police, and others to stand 'in lieu' of such victims, or to use RJ to create victims where no immediate victim is identifiable. Moreover, dealing with such cases may lead to net-widening (Hudson, 2002;Skelton & Frank, 2004), which can exacerbate the problem of administrative co-option, given limited human resources.…”