1 / 26

David O’Mahony, Department of Law, Durham University

Can Restorative Justice Deliver what Victims Want? Restorative Youth Conferencing in Northern Ireland. David O’Mahony, Department of Law, Durham University

hastingss
Télécharger la présentation

David O’Mahony, Department of Law, Durham University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Can Restorative Justice Deliver what Victims Want? Restorative Youth Conferencing in Northern Ireland David O’Mahony, Department of Law, Durham University Campbell, C., Devlin, R., O’Mahony, D., Doak, J., Jackson, J., Corrigan, T., McEvoy, K. (2006) Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conference Service. Northern Ireland Office: Research and Statistical Series Report No.12 http://www.nio.gov.uk/evaluation_of_the_northern_ireland_youth_conference_service.pdf

  2. Background • Justice (NI) Act 2002 • Youth Conference Service December 2003 • Evaluation- Fieldwork: Dec 2003 to July 2005 • Main methods: observations and participant interviews

  3. The Research • In total: • 185 conferences observed • 125 interviews with victims (86%) • 11 interviews with non-participating victims • 171 interviews with young people (92%)

  4. Youth conferencing • Two types of referral: • Prosecution – Diversionary • Court - Court Ordered • Young person (10-17) must admit or be found guilty • Young person must consent • Mandatory referral process (must, may and may not) • Mainstreamed Restorative Approach

  5. Who can attend?

  6. Pre-conference Meeting with Young Person Explain purpose of conference Re-establish consent and assess suitability Prepare young person for conference Explain purpose of conference Meeting with Victim Assess victims level of participation Prepare victim for conference Understand victim’s position

  7. Co-ordinator Victim Offender Victim Supporter Offender Supporter Police Officer The Conference

  8. Victim Participation • ‘Participation’ as attendance at a conference • Victim present in 69% of the 185 conferences observed.

  9. Victim ‘Type’ • Victim representatives – 60% • ‘Personal’ victims – 40%

  10. Victim ‘Type’ contd. • The ‘type’ of victim and impact: • The apology “Never arose. If any apology, it would have been to the police. They were more the injured party” (Victim representative). • ‘Victimless’ crimes It is explained that the offence is against the ‘general public’. Young person, “What is the general public? I don’t understand what that means”.

  11. A Restorative Dynamic • Young person, “I wish the victim had have been down – to try and express my regret to him” • Co-ordinator, “We would usually talk to the victim now but I have had a telephone call…he didn’t want to get involved in the conference…” Young person, “It makes me feel bad”.

  12. Offence ‘Type’ • 47% of ‘personal’ victims attended as a victim of assault • The majority of victim representatives attended for the offence of theft or criminal damage

  13. Motivations • To hear what the young person had to say (88%): “I wanted to hear what the young person had to say” • To explain the impact of the offence (87%): “I wanted the young person to see how much it hurt me and not how much they thought it hurt me”

  14. Motivations contd. • To help the young person (79%): “I wanted to help the young person get straightened out” “I didn’t come for myself but for the young person…the offence didn’t really affect me in a big way”

  15. Motivations contd. • Non-participation as choice: - a desire to move on - not wishing to meet face to face - offence not serious enough, “I didn’t think it was worth it, not a big enough offence” • Continued engagement with the restorative process? “I would have liked to have seen what the result was”

  16. Conference Experience • Preparation and engagement • Victims felt they were generally well prepared • Only 20% of victims were visibly nervous vs. 71% of offenders • 83% of victims were ‘very engaged’ in process • 92% of victims felt they had said everything they wanted to • All victims felt they were given the opportunity to express themselves

  17. Apology and Remorse • 91% of victims received at least an apology • Only one personal victim did not receive an apology 85% of victims were happy with the apology made 91% of conferences with victim present, the offender displayed remorse

  18. Youth Conference Plan • Must contain one or more of the following and shall not last more than one year • Apology • Reparation • Payment • Supervision • Un-paid work (16 and over) • Activities • Restrictions • Treatment • Little guidance on proportionality/limiting principles

  19. Devising the Plan • 96% of victims were engaged in devising the conference plan • 95% of victims were satisfied with the process of determining the plan • 95% of plans were agreed

  20. Elements of Plans • Reparation 76% • Help to offender 83% • Rehabilitation 56% • Punishment 27%

  21. Best features of Plans • Victims felt the best features were: • Helping the offender in some way • Preventing re-offending • Holding the offender to account Victim ‘The best part was being given the opportunity to talk to the wee lad and hope he won’t do it again. Also, I think the best part was talking to his mum and understanding her position’

  22. Court or Conference? • Only 11% of Victims would have preferred if the case had been dealt with in court Personal Victim: Rather court? “No, because [the young person] wouldn’t have got help with his addiction, wouldn’t have got the opportunity he has now. He has six months of help”. Court more lenient? “Not sure. Basically a sentence is over and done with. Now he has time to reflect on what he has done, to make amends as such. He has to engage in the help people are offering.

  23. Negative feelings following conference • 7% of victims felt ‘worse’ following conference Victim: ‘I’m more negative about the process than I was before. …the offenders attitude and the fact that it was tolerated, …no one is reaching to the real offender. People are just reacting to his anger, not addressing it.’

  24. Victims’ Satisfaction • 92% felt process was fair • 98% felt their views were taken seriously • 98% felt ‘safe’ in the conference • 88% would recommend conference to someone else in a similar situation

  25. Overarching Themes • Most victims are happy with conferencing • Most victims positively fed into the restorative aspects of conferencing • Most victims want to help the offender and few want retribution or vengeance • Effective victim participation is resource intensive, need to avoid ‘net-widening’ and concentrate on providing high quality service to appropriate cases

  26. Further Reading Campbell, C., Devlin, R., O’Mahony, D., Doak, J., Jackson, J., Corrigan, T., McEvoy, K. (2006) Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conference Service. Northern Ireland Office: Research and Statistical Series Report No.12 http://www.nio.gov.uk/evaluation_of_the_northern_ireland_youth_conference_service.pdf • See also website for Youth Conferencing Service: http://www.youthconferenceserviceni.gov.uk/ • Doak J & O’Mahony D (2006) The Vengeful Victim. International Review of Victimology Vol. 13 pp 157-177

More Related