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.pdf) Back
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
| 
