Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment - Justice Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by the Restorative Justice Consortium

SUMMARY

  The RJC welcomes the Justice Committee's interest in the use of Justice Reinvestment. We believe that Justice Reinvestment can provide better value for money in terms of reduced crime and need for imprisonment, as based on the outcomes of research in the US and the UK.

Many alternatives to the current criminal justice system have been shown to be more cost-effective and effective.

We believe that investment in alternatives, more particularly in increased provision of RJ and use of restorative approaches in institutions, can provide the desired results. Restorative justice has been proven to respond to victims needs after an offence and also provide offender with insight and motivation to change their behaviour—thus providing improved public safety, confidence in how crime is dealt with and reduced crime.

  1.  We have concentrated in our response to the inquiry on the second, third and fourth questions published by the committee—an examination of potential alternative policies and how they could be achieved. We present Restorative Justice, in its many forms, as one of the more effective alternative policy tools to investment in the traditional criminal justice system.

  2.  Justice Reinvestment has the potential to invest in responses to crime, criminal behaviour and its beginnings that are proven to work. Evidence of higher levels of criminality in particular areas can be matched with planned investments to address specific issues in that locality, based on the outcome of specific research into difference alternatives.

  3.  A recent Matrix report[50] provides detailed information about the savings available through use of many alternatives prison, implying that through reinvestment in alternatives, money could be saved and potentially redirected into further support through health care, education, social services support etc aimed at promoting well being and preventing the cycle of offending.

  4.  At the RJC, we feel that resources currently invested in the criminal justice system could be invested more effectively in restorative practices both within and outside the system. Within the system, this would involve:

    (a) Provision of restorative justice at all levels of the sentencing process (pre, during and post sentence) to allow victims of crime to benefit from reduced post traumatic stress disorder, reduced desire for revenge and other health issues proven to be reduced by participation in RJ.[51]

    (b) Provision of restorative justice at all levels of the sentencing process (pre, during and post sentence) to allow those convicted of a crime to communicate safely and potentially rebuild links with their families and communities in order to improve their opportunities to not re-offend on release.

    (c) Provision of restorative justice at all levels of the sentencing process (pre, during and post sentence) to allow those convicted of a crime to communicate safely with those they have offended against. Recent research shows that this has lead to offenders expressing reduced intention to re-offend and changed attitudes to offending behaviour.[52]

    (d) Provision of restorative justice within institutions (Prisons, Young Offender Institutions and Care Homes) to allow the learning and practice of peaceful conflict management and communication skills among prisoners, young offenders and staff. This works alongside anger management and other behaviour management skills learned and allows those involved to put those skills into practice in situations that would once have caused conflict and possibly violent responses.[53]

    (e) Provision of restorative justice within the community (through Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), Local Government departments, the Police) to deal with issues such as anti-social behaviour, community disputes and gangs. This can prevent issues in the community and other situations from escalating and coming into the criminal justice system. RJ allows such cases to be dealt with before court, to the satisfaction of those involved and avoid the need for formal action to be taken. As RJ is a voluntary process, those cases not suitable for RJ can still be dealt with through traditional routes.

    (f) Increased use of restorative justice in cases of youth crime. The Youth Justice Board already allows for this and some restorative justice is built into their Referral Order Panel processes. We would like to see more use of restorative justice in the form of formal conferences between young offenders and their victims, indirect mediation and victim-led reparation—these are currently available in some areas but dependent on local priorities and funding availability. A programme of justice reinvestment could provide resources for this.

    (g) Use of restorative approaches in Schools. The use of restorative approaches in Schools allows young people to learn about the impact of their actions and also skills for dealing with other people and their feelings in constructive ways. Schools using restorative approaches across the board have reported reduced need of sanctions, exclusions and outside authorities. Incidents of bullying have been seen to reduce and also incident of disputes in school spilling into the community or vice versa. Restorative approaches have also been used to improve parent-teacher relations and relationships between the school and care homes.

  5.  In response to the question, to what extent additional resources should be redirected from the penal system into social, health and educational provision, we would urge the panel to look closely at the outcomes of research such as that carried out in the United States and in the UK by the International Centre for Prison Studies.[54]

  6.  This study recommends the use of mediation referrals for neighbourhood police teams and the use of a multi-agency approach involving many of the key partners the RJC believes should be able to refer through to Restorative Justice—anti-social behaviour teams, CDRPs, Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), local magistrates and criminal justice boards. We believe resources could be redirected to provide a general RJ service supporting restorative approaches in all partner organisations (schools, YOTs, ASB teams etc) in the local area and providing experienced practitioners to prepare and provide Restorative Justice to referred participants. This would provide support to local criminal justice agencies as well as local schools and provide the social and health benefits proven to be linked to use of RJ as well as reduced incidences of anti-social behaviour, quality of life crime and escalating local disputes.

  7.  Justice Reinvestment could make a major impact on our penal policy as a means to break the circle of crime present in many areas where the underlying problems leading to criminal behaviour are not being addressed. Justice Reinvestment also offers an opportunity to divert or prevent young people from entering a cycle of crime by investing in their education and support and providing real options to allow for informed choice for the their future. This is also promoted by dealing with low level incidents outside the criminal justice system, proven to encourage young people to become more involved in crime over short sentences. Justice Reinvestment could mean an emphasis on dealing with the external factors contributing to increased criminality, or investment in support, in many different forms, for individuals at risk of becoming criminal.

  8.  Existing structures and partnerships could be used to a great extent in implementing alternative policies, in particular in increasing the use of Restorative Justice—we envisage a situation where cases can be referred to local restorative justice services set up in each area/region. Current projects run on the basis of partnerships and referring relationships developed locally with probation, prisons, police, local magistrates and youth offending teams. Built on the structures of Local Criminal Justice Boards and CDRPs, these partnerships can easily be initiated, especially if lead by a regional or national policy of Justice Reinvestment and renewed priorities to include RJ provision.

  9.  Barriers to Restorative Justice that we and our members and partners have encountered include:

    (a) Time needed to build confidence in and knowledge of restorative justice among sentencers.

    (b) Resources required to provide RJ services including the preparation and follow-up support that are necessary for all involved.

    (c) Structures for measuring and assessing RJ interventions especially through RJ running counter to some partners' target figures.

    (d) Public misunderstanding of the meaning of RJ, this can be successfully dealt with through a targeted communications policy, targeted information provision for participants and their families.

    (e) Necessary development of arrangements to allow access to RJ for those already sentenced.

  10.  We are optimistic of the potential for political consensus on an alternative future penal policy. Alternatives provide for improvement of the existing system and additional opportunities to provide efficient and effective justice. Alternative policies can make the current system more efficient and also reserve the formal criminal justice processes for those offences where no alternative is available. As investing in alternatives to the current system can make the system more effective, efficient and targeted, we feel there is great scope for engagement of political and public will for change.

  11.  The media must be engaged in the move to shift the culture of penal policy and the terms of debate that are available. This can be done in part by the media raising the profile of alternatives to the criminal justice policy, but also through presentation of the sound reasoning behind justice reinvestment and the methods of allocating resources to reduce offending and pressure on the criminal justice system.

  12.  We believe that investment in alternatives to the criminal justice system should be presented as investment in methods proven to effect offending rates rather than a move to reduce expenditure on the criminal justice system. As the term reinvestment implies, this should be presented at the improved investment of the criminal justice budget rather than an initiative to save resources. This would involve emphasis in communications on the reasoning behind the choice of alternatives funded rather than the savings these stand for in the short term.

  The Restorative Justice Consortium (RJC) is the independent body supporting and promoting Restorative Justice (RJ) in England and Wales. We provide information about RJ to the public, promote the development of RJ based on the evidence available and support our members who work in the RJ field. We are a not-for-profit organisation and a registered charity.[55]

  Restorative Justice processes bring victims and offenders into communication, whether face-to-face or indirectly, to address the harm caused by crime. RJ allows victims to tell offenders of the impact their crime has had on them and their families, to receive an apology and in some cases some form of reparation. RJ gives offenders the chance to understand the impact of their crime, to apologise and to make amends.

What do we know about Restorative Justice?

  13.  The research evidence we have demonstrates that Restorative Justice processes deliver strong benefits for victims of crime who choose to participate. In the 1998 British Crime Survey, 41% of victims said they would like to meet their offenders. Evidence from studies all over the world show that more than 75% of victims who take part in RJ processes are glad that they did.[56] Recent research has also shown that RJ can reduce victims' post-traumatic stress disorder (and related costs) and their desire for violent revenge.[57] The RJC 2006 literature review Restorative Processes and outcomes for victims examined evidence from numerous studies across the globe that show that RJ increases victims' satisfaction with the criminal justice process.[58] For example, in an evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conference Service, 81% of victims stated that they preferred a restorative conference to court and the vast majority (88%) said they would recommend a conference to a person in a similar situation.[59]

14.  RJ also offers strong benefits for offenders in terms of increased self-esteem, the opportunity to apologise and put right harm caused and a step towards reintegration into the community. Evidence for reductions in recidivism is more mixed. Recent research carried out by Professor Larry Sherman, published by the Smith Institute, shows that RJ does no worse than short sentences for young offenders. In studies from other countries adult offenders diverted from prison to RJ had lower reconviction rates than comparable peers.[60] What we do know for sure is that Restorative Justice has no worse a record in terms of recidivism than any other Criminal Justice System disposal and can provide a wide range of positive consequences, particularly for victims. RJC has drawn together research into the impact of Restorative Justice on recidivism. This is available on our website.[61]

  15.  These benefits can accrue at whichever stage in the criminal justice process RJ is used—whether as a diversion, at point of sentence, or post sentence, when the offender is in custody or in the community. Given this, and given the need for RJ processes to be available to victims when they want and are ready for them, we do not believe that the development of RJ should be approached as an alternative to other disposals, but as a tool to ensure the justice systems work for both victim and offender.

Harriet Bailey

Chief Executive

February 2008






50   The full report answering the question Are prison sentences really a cost-beneficial way of reducing offending behaviour in those populations who are at risk of further offending? is available at http://www.matrixknowledge.co.uk/prison-economics/ Back

51   This is a service currently provided by the RJ Service in Thames Valley, formerly know as TVStaRS. Back

52   Findings contained in the Ministry of Justice research into the views of victims and offenders taking part in Restorative justice available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research190607.htm Back

53   Restorative Approaches are already being used in a number of YOIs to great effect (YOI Cornton Vale, Ashfield and Brinsford)-for restorative approaches used in prison, please see the SORI programme originating at HMP Cardiff and the Sycamore Tree Project run by the Prison Fellowship. A number of care homes across the country are experimenting with the use of restorative approaches and reporting reduced need for recourse to the Police of minor issues and better relationships building with the young residents. Back

54   Justice Reinvestment-A New Approach to Crime and Justice, R Allen and V Stern (eds) ICPS 2007. Back

55   Further information about Restorative Justice, and about the work of the RJC can be found on our website at www.restorativejustice.org.uk Back

56   Restorative Justice; the Government's Strategy (HMSO, 2003), Restorative Justice: the views of victims and offenders-the third report from the evaluation of three schemes (MoJ, 2007) (This research report is the third from Professor Joanna Shapland at Sheffield University. Her reports were commissioned by the Home Office to provide an independent evaluation of the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme Restorative Justice research projects. The first two reports, looking at how the schemes were set up, and at the RJ process itself, were published by the Home Office in 2004 and 2006, and can be found at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr3204.pdf and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/r274.pdfBack

57   Restorative Justice: the evidence, Sherman and Strang, 2007, p64. Back

58   The full report is available at: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/Resources/pdf/RJ_Victims_Outcomes_Aug2006.pdf Back

59   Campbell, C, Devlin, R, O'Mahony, D, Doak, J, Jackson, J, Corrigan, T, and McEvoy, K (2005). Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conference Service NIO Research and Statistical Series: Report No 12. Belfast: Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Queen's University. Available online at:http://www.nio.gov.uk/evaluation_of_the_northern_ireland_youth_conference_service.pdf Back

60   Restorative Justice: the evidence, Sherman and Strang, 2007, p 8. Back

61   Full information on Restorative Processes and Re-offending is available at http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/Resources/pdf/RJ%20and%20the%20Reduction%20of%20Reoffending_update03042006.pdf Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 14 January 2010