1 / 60

Effects of Face-to-Face Restorative Justice on Victims of Crime in Four Randomized, Controlled Trials

Effects of Face-to-Face Restorative Justice on Victims of Crime in Four Randomized, Controlled Trials. Lawrence Sherman University of Pennsylvania Heather Strang Australian National University. Jerry Lee Program of Randomized Controlled Trials in Restorative Justice. Caroline Angel, PhD

wallace
Télécharger la présentation

Effects of Face-to-Face Restorative Justice on Victims of Crime in Four Randomized, Controlled Trials

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. Effects of Face-to-Face Restorative Justice on Victims of Crime in Four Randomized, Controlled Trials Lawrence Sherman University of Pennsylvania Heather Strang Australian National University

  2. Jerry Lee Program ofRandomized Controlled Trials in Restorative Justice Caroline Angel, PhD Dorothy Newbury-Birch, Ph.D. Geoffrey Barnes, Ph.D. Sarah Bennett, M. Phil. Daniel J. Woods, M.A. Meredith Rossner, M.A.

  3. Publications • Journal of Experimental Criminology (2005) 1: 367–395 • Smith Institute, London (February 8, 2007 release) http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/

  4. What Is Restorative Justice? Definition: Face-to-Face Variety Restorative Justice (RJ) is any process of • holding offenders responsible for crime • attempting to repair the harm from crime • engaging all affected parties in discussion

  5. With or Without Court • Experiments in Restorative Justice • Lawrence W. Sherman • University of Pennsylvania

  6. Court—or Conference?

  7. Exclusion from process, without Apologies Explanations Voice Healing as a Goal Retribution Victims Left Out

  8. Other Varieties of RJ • Ancient Customs—family payments • Roman Law • Wergild • Mediation—2 parties • Restitution—court-ordered ----------------------------------------------------- May all try to “restore” status quo, but not necessarily engage emotions

  9. Operational Characteristics of Face-to-Face RJ • Meetings between victims and admitted offenders, in the presence of supporters of both • Facilitators play minimum role: ensure discussion stays on topic and remains civil • Uncoerced participation by all present • Minimal discussion of the facts: emphasis on how participants feel

  10. Characteristics of an RJ ‘conference’ • Participants sit in a circle • Discussion covers three focal issues: • What happened in the course of the crime? • Who was affected by the crime, and how? • What should happen now to repair the harm? • Each party asked to contribute, in turn • Duration of meeting usually 1.5-2 hours • Outcome agreement, listing undertakings made by offender, signed at the end by all parties.

  11. Better Name for Face-to-Face RJ Redemptive Justice: A process by which an offender may attempt to apologize, make amends, and seek forgiveness from their victims

  12. Theoretical backgrounds • Criminology: reintegrative shaming theory (Braithwaite), procedural justice theory (Tyler) and defiance theory (Sherman). • Sociology: Interaction Ritual Theory (Collins) • Psychiatry: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) as for rape victims (Foa)

  13. Jerry Lee Center at Penn Program of Experiments in RJ • Series of RCTs conducted in Australia (4) and the United Kingdom ( 8) since 1995. • Experimental condition always structured on standard format and led by trained police officers • In Australia, RJ was an alternative to ‘normal court’ processing, in UK RJ was in addition to ‘normal’ justice. • Control group consistently lacked any supervised interaction between victims and offenders.

  14. RJ Experiments in Australia • Violent Crime: Offenders under 30 declined to deny • Property Crime: Offenders under 18 Personal victim Declined to deny • Victims Invited after Random Assignment

  15. RJ Experiments in London • Eligible offenses: robbery and serious burglary prosecuted in Crown Courts (not Magistrates Courts) • Offenders approached after a guilty plea and before sentencing • If offender consented to participation in research, victims likewise approached • When both parties had agreed, case randomly assigned to court alone or court plus RJ.

  16. Procedure for RJ group • Interviewed by facilitator face-to-face prior to RJ to advise about role and expectations re the conference meeting • Encouraged to bring supporters • Most London conferences held in prison where offender was remanded awaiting sentence • Conference held post-plea during 3 week adjournment for Probation report

  17. London Robbery 82% of invited offenders consented (N=125) 52% of their victims consented 43% of eligible cases randomly assigned Under 10% dropout 100% of interviewed victims treated as intended London Burglary 78%of invited offenders consented (N=216) 59% of their victims consented 46% of eligible cases randomly assigned Under 10% dropout 100% of interviewed victims treated as intended London Take-up rates

  18. Violence N = 100 cases Victim Response = 81 % of asked = 91% % of RJ not delivered = 16% Overall take-up rate not tracked by police Property N = 173 Cases Victim Resp= 151 % of asked = 88% % of RJ not delivered = 28% Australian Take-Up Rates

  19. London Burglary Consent Status (N = 588) n=588 offender contact cases

  20. London Robbery Consent Status (N = 390) n=390 offender contact cases

  21. The Forgiveness Question In Newberg (2000) model, 4-stage process: • Recognize injury • Commitment to Forgiveness • Cognitive & Affective activity • Behavioral Action What about exogenous intervention?

  22. The Forgiveness Question Can forgiveness be engineered? • Fostered • Encouraged • Coerced?

  23. The Apology Premise • Don’t we assume that redemption requires repentance, or at least remorse In the form of an apology expressed to the victim—preferably with a request for forgiveness?

  24. A Miracle? Tavuchis (1991): “the almost miraculous qualities of a satisfying apology” “An opportunity to forgive” --legitimacy of the violated rule --admission of fault & responsibility --genuine regret and remorse

  25. The Vengeance Hypothesis Forgiveness releases the victim from punishment and revenge Works to terminate escalating dispute Hannah Arendt (1958)

  26. Press Release Headline? “MAKING OFFENDERS SAY SORRY CAN CUT CRIME”

  27. Press Release Headline? “MAKING OFFENDERS SAY SORRY CAN CUT CRIME” (Making offenders FEEL sorry may cut crime)

  28. Press Release Headline? “MAKING OFFENDERS SAY SORRY CAN CUT CRIME” (Making offenders FEEL sorry may cut crime) (Allowing offenders to apologize can cut vengeance)

  29. Defining Forgiveness • Murphy (1988: 96)forswearing resentment • Newberg (2000: ) forswearing revenge Operational: “I forgive you” (resentment) “I do not desire to harm you” (revenge)

  30. Results • 4 RCTs with victim interviews • Both male and female victims • 8 Subgroups • One point estimate for each gender • Forest Graphs • Probability of pattern due to chance

  31. Four Questions • Does RJ Yield More Apologies Than CJ? • Do victims perceive RJ apologies as sincere? • Do RJ victims say they “forgive” offenders at a higher rate than for CJ? • Do RJ victims express less desire for physical revenge than CJ victims?

  32. Benefits of Forgiveness? • Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms • London only • Caroline Angel 2005 Penn Nursing-Criminology PhD dissertation

  33. London Robbery 138 victims Average age 31 years 51% female 29% non-white London Burglary 268 victims Average age 36 years 50% female 13% non-white Characteristics of victims in the experimental sample

  34. Victim attrition from experimental sample to interview sample All victim interviews conducted by phone, thus requiring respondents to be: • Adults • Fluent in English In addition, interviews needed to be conducted within protocol set for the study – 6 months post-sentence

  35. London Time lines • Offense to RA: X = 19 weeks • RA to interview: X = 3.5 weeks

  36. Characteristics of interviewed London sample* • Victim knew offender 5% • Victim verbally threatened 15% • Offender had weapon 14% • Victim physically injured 15% • Victim psych traumatised 20% • Victim received counseling 9% *No significant difference between E and C on any of these measures

  37. Instruments • Impact of Event Scale- Revised • 22 item questionnaire • Wide recognition in the field of traumatic stress • Performed well in pilot test • Post-traumatic stress Diagnostic Scale • For coding of psychological trauma

  38. Robbery & Burglary Offender Apologies to Victims: RJ vs. CJ p ≤ 0.000

  39. Average level of Victim Post Traumatic StressBoth Robbery & Burglary (Wave 1) p ≤ 0.010

  40. Average level of Victim Post Traumatic StressRobbery Only (Wave 1) p ≤ 0.066

  41. Moderate to severe daily impairment from Crime Stress—including work (Wave 1) p ≤ 0.120

  42. Key Findings • In the total sample, RJ participants demonstrated lower PTSS over time • Both RJ & CJ decreasing PTSS over time • BUT RJ group lower quicker, especially intrusion scores, AND • RJ participants remain less symptomatic overall 6 months later • In the psychologically traumatized subsample • RJ participants significantly less distressed, but not statistically significant

  43. Limitations • Baseline assessments not conducted • more difficult to detect improvements in participants and • psychopathology may begin at sub-clinical levels • Not necessarily generalizable to • The world of victims at large • Those with diagnosed PTSD

  44. Application • Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:109-116 “Prospective Study of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms and Coronary Heart Disease in the Normative Aging Study” • Laura D. Kubzansky, PhD; Karestan C. Koenen, PhD; Avron Spiro III, PhD; Pantel S. Vokonas, MD; David Sparrow, DSc

  45. Key Findings: • Low-to-moderate PTSS levels • For each SD increase in symptom level, men had age-adjusted relative risks of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.51) for nonfatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD combined.

  46. Discussion • Theoretical Mechanisms • PTSS and Health • Why does PTSS decline?

More Related